Plain Talk

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.II Pg.1

April 1972

Truthful Excuses

Robert F. Turner

An excuse need not be a lie. It is because, factor, or circumstance that frees from blame or releases from obligation. Many excuses are both truthful and legitimate; some are outright lies; while others may be very truthful, yet reveal a most unbecoming character in the maker.

When someone explains his absence from worship with, “We had visitors,” this need not be a lie. It may be truth — which tells us that this person regards social amenities as being more important than worship.

“No one is perfect!” How very very true. So — there can be no standards, no right or wrong? There can be no ideals to which we can press, nor should we urge such elevated goals upon others? Can’t we see that the imperfection of man is the very reason for recognizing our failures as such, and helping one another to get up and try again?

“Many people do it,” to which we all must agree. Does that make it the will of God? Many people think that man made God in his own image, and accept a situation-ethics standard; but it can not be demonstrated that such a philosophy has ever elevated mankind, or promoted a stable society. This is a poor substitute for faith in God and individual character.

“There are hypocrites in the church,” — and the world has none?? Do you think that using a hypocrite as your excuse makes you a better man? And how is it that one is able to see the truth with reference to hypocrisy in others, and be blinded to the same in themselves? (Matt. 7:1-5)

“But I meant well!” This also may he the truth. It commends, to some extent; but it remains a commendation only as our honest heart leads us to further consider God’s truth, and make corrections accordingly.

A radio commercial of some years back has one man excusing himself (?) from worship with, “Things are so unsettled these days. There is so little time. Why, the whole world may be blown apart at any moment.”

And the reply was, “That’s right!”

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.II Pg.2

April 1972

On Saving

Robert F. Turner

Brethren

 

Opinionated brethren are split into splinter groups. There are legalist among us. Many church members are hypocrites. Well, do not expect me to deny these charges, nor to rush to the defense of opinionated brethren, legalist or hypocrites. If I take the announcements a bit more calmly than some of our angry young men expect, it is not because I am unconcerned. It is just that these same problems were found in the first century church, and faithful brethren have been working on the problems for many years; and I am more concerned with assisting brethren to better un­derstand and practice the way of the Lord than I am in protest slogans.

Radical propaganda relies heavily upon the word Hypocrisy and Tradi­tional to leave the impression that any facet of society which has weath­ered the years, and whose continued success is a standing rebuttal to revolution, must be bad. Such an unrealistic spirit may have been un­wittingly adopted by critics of the church. But a catalogue of errors and divisions, however lengthy, does not justify another party, based upon an erroneous concept of fellowship— even if it flies a flag called UNITY.

Ive done my share of combating a sectarian spirit among brethren, and plan to continue such. But oftimes brethren are unaware that they have drifted into a sectarian concept of church; and they are worshipping God in the only way they have been taught, and-as sincerely as their ca­pacity allows. If we see faults, we will not help them by rash charges. Instead, we might work up sermons to explain more clearly the true meaning of worship. We might lead them to a better understanding of church, but could never drive them there.

Teaching must proceed from the known to the unknown; the familiar to the unfamiliar. One may reach people with familiar terminology—even that of the King James version—who would be alienated by other words. Is ones pride of scholarship (?) more important than saving souls?

People often respond to what we expect of them. If I approach a study convinced that what I. say will make people angry, I may have a fight on my hands before I can get away. But if I assume that they want the truth, and concentrate on giving them a fair demonstration, I may reach some. My attitude will greatly affect theirs.

Put briefly, we must demonstrate respect for divine authority, and the love for God and brethren we would like to see in others.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.II Pg.3

April 1972

Unplain Talk

Dan S. Shipley

 

Man has nothing more valuable than his own soul (Mt. 16:26) and can learn nothing more valuable than how to save his soul. That is why gospel truth is the most important thing any man can learn or be taught. And that is why all who teach the word of God should remember the extreme seriousness of their task as emphasized in Jas. 3:1: Be not many of you teachers my brethren, knowing that we shall receive heavier judgement. So, teaching Gods truth is not something to be taken lightly. In fact, all Bible teaching should be flavored with the realization that, unlike other teach­ing, it is wrought with eternal con­sequences for both teacher and stu­dent. No math or English teacher ever had that kind of motivation!

But effective Bible teaching in­volves more than just talking about the Bible. It must be plain talk! — teaching that is understandable. Paul states this principle in connection with speaking in tongues: So also ye, unless ye utter by the tongue speech easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye will be speaking into the air. (1 Cor. 14:9) Without plain talk in our Bible teaching there can be no understanding in things that need most to be understood. Worse, there can be misunderstanding and confusion.

Regrettably, unplain talk is dis­pensed in several hard- to-understand varieties, one of the most popular being ambiguity. This involves the use of expressions and terms that are susceptible to different interpretations or that might convey more than one possible meaning. The learner must understand words in the sense intended by the teacher. Unwitting ambiguity may result with the use of such common terms as church, baptism and Christian, depending on the learners background. Failure to understand such terms in their Bible sense may cause them to appear as nonsense—as with the brother who taught that an elder could not join a labor union because he was to be no striker.

Generalization is another kind of unplain talk hindering good teaching. While it is true that men must do the will of God to be saved (Mt. 7: 21), His will consists of specifics to be known and obeyed. Sin cannot be ef­fectively dealt with generally simply because sins are not committed gen­erally. Speaking out against immodesty is one thing; mini-skirts and bathing suits are something else. Be­ing the slave of bad habits general­izes; being the slave of tobacco is specific. Everybody believes in the autonomy of the church — until you get down to specifics. Over—generalizing is like speaking into the air for all the good it does. Souls are at stake; understanding is essential; be specific!

Unplain talk may be impressive, entertaining and eloquent without being instructive—and thats the whole point of teaching. The real measure of effective teaching lies in its being understood and remembered; not in the plaudits it may receive from men. Teachers, what greater service can be rendered to others than helping them to understand and remember Gods truth?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.II Pg.4

April 1972

It Figures~~

Robert F. Turner

Then the preacher said, Let each one put his shoulder to the wheel and his nose to the grindstone, one of the deacons remarked, Wow are we going to get any work done in that condition? Of course the preacher was using figurative language, justifiably; but his mixing of figures made an absurdity. The same effect may be obtained by stretching a figure, or extending its application to something the maker did not intend.

Years ago I heard a black man jokingly argue that only the blacks would be saved. He pointed out that in the judgement scene (Matt. 25:) the sheep were saved, the goats lost. He then asked, Who has the wool? I enjoy such humor, in its place; but can not appreciate the serious extension of a Bible figure to promote some man s concept of fellowship.

Carl Ketchersides child of God in prospect does just that. He reasons (apparently prompted by an early article by Alexander Campbell, Millennial Harbinger) that spiritual life begins when spiritual begetting takes place, and before the new birth. There is an element of truth here— applicable in understanding how one is drawn or called unto God. But there is nothing in Gods word to indicate such life (?) is recognized as making one a child of God. in any fixed relationship. In fact, in Jn. 8: Jesus told those who believed on (eis) Him—If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and later, He called these same people children of the Devil. (Vs. 39-44) All accountable beings are potentially (in prospect?) children of God, and we must love, teach with patience, and

use every legitimate means to bring them to the Lord. The Lord had many people in Corinth in prospect (Acts 18:9-10) but Paul had yet to teach them and convert them. They were not yet his brethren in the Lord.

Figurative language is subject to the user, and must be interpreted in context, i.e., with the meaning and limitations imposed by the user. An uninspired user of figures may make a poor choice of metaphors, and confuse rather than edify the listener. We may charge him with ineptness, but we have no right to make of his bungle something he did not intend to teach.

Figurative language may have dual uses— again, subject to the user. In Jn. 8:39-f. Jesus uses child of— to stress family characteristics. Here He is concerned with being a child of God, not with becoming such..(.See Matt. 5:44-45) The general epistle of John is written to Christians, and it is in the context of being a child of God (Gods seed remaineth in him) that we sin not. (1 Jn. 3:9) The same context influences the born of God statement of 1 Jn. 5:1-f., and the faith here is faithfulness as a Christian (see vs. 4) rather than some supposed faith only in order to become a child of God.

If I say some track star is like lightening, I am using an exaggerated figure to say he is fast— not that he lights up the sky. The same common sense rules for interpreting the Scriptures would save us from many a blunder— and foolish notions.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.II Pg.5

April 1972

Keep Thy Heart

Robert F. Turner

It is a rare thing indeed for any man to admit (honestly) that his heart is not "good" or "right:". We may acknowledge all sorts of wrong doing -- even say, "I'm just no good"; when the admission itself is supposed to prove (?) that "deep down" we are really a fairly decent fellow. But sins "of the heart" -- "I am a covetous man" etc. -- are rarely confessed.

Yet, every test the scriptures offer for knowing the heart, have to do with words, actions and conscious thoughts. MAT.7:20 -"by their fruits ye shall know them", is followed by "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven". And that section is followed by the lesson of the wise and foolish builders, who "did" and "did not" the "sayings" of Christ. Luke's record has, "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man colt of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh." (Luk.6:45)

The primary, initial approach to God is the development of basic faith in His "eternal power and deity"; a faith that, given the reins, will impose certain fundamental obligations upon man -- to "glorify" God and "be thankful" or recognize our dependence on Him. (ROM.1:18-f) This faith is possible for all of mankind who have the capacity to consider and evaluate the created world about them. But, because it humbles man before his Maker, many reject it. The capacity to accept Him is in us, but being free agents, we must "give our hearts" to Him -- and here is the rub. "Professing themselves to be wise -- " (we contend that our heart is "good") "they became fools". (ROM. 1:22)

Each individual is a microcosm of Paul's universal truth. Each is a "little world" to which God presents Himself. Only those who bow their hearts are then in position to objectively approach His revelation, and be governed thereby. Woe unto those whose "heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them". (MAT.13:10-16)

It follows, therefore, that both an overtly sinful life and/or persistent disrespect for divine authority, is evidence of a bad heart. One who manifests a hateful attitude toward his brother has a bad heart -- God is not there. (1JO.3:10-f) Why hesitate to say what John plainly wrote? It was a bad heart that kept people from heeding Jesus during His earthly sojourn; and that keeps others from considering His words today. No wonder we are exhorted to "love the Lord thy God with all thy heart" and to believe "with all shine heart".(MAT.22:37 ACT.8:37)

Paul wrote, "The goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. (ITI.1:5, NAS, emph. mine)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.II Pg.6

April 1972

Armageddon, 1975

Robert F. Turner

In his book, Year of Doom 1975. the former Jehovahs Witness, Mr. W. C. Stevenson, explains how the J.W.s ar­rive at their date— and how they may slip out of it— come 1976,—— or 77.

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

In the October 8, 1966 issue of AWAKE! the basis of this prediction is explained. Since the Witnesses believe that the creative days of Genesis are 7,000 years in length, for reasons which I outlined at the beginning of this chapter, and since man was created at the close of the sixth day, in the autumn of the year 4026 B.C., as this article precisely puts it, it follows that we are near­ing the end of the first six thousand years of mans existence. If the date of the creation of man (4026 BC) is also the date of the beginning of the seventh creative day or sabbath, it is therefore calculated that the end of the first 6,000 years of this 7,000—year—long day will take place in the year 1975. Since the last thou­sand years of this seventh day are to be occupied entirely by the millennial reign of Christ, it follows that the year 1975 will witness the Battle of Armageddon and the ushering in of the long-awaited new world under the King Jesus Christ.... (p.85. )

But things are not so certain. (rt) If we turn further back into the Societys literature to the February 1, 1955, issue of The Watchtower the confusion and contradiction worsen considerably, for we read on page 95: The very fact that, as part of Jehovahs secret, no one today is able to find out how much time Adam and later Eve lived during the closing days of the sixth creative period so no one can now determine when six thousand years of Jehovahs present rest day come to an end. Obviously, whatever amount of Adams 930 years was lived before the beginning of that seventh day rest of Jehovah, that unknown amount would have to be added to the 1976 date. (Pp. 86—87)

The date 1976 is not a misprint for 1975. It is because the Society has on several occasions changed its mind about the date of Adams creation. In the book The Truth Shall Make You Free (1943) it is given as BC. In 1944, in the book The Kingdom Is At Hand it is given as 4026 BC. But in 1953 in the book New Heavens and a New Earth it was al­tered to 4025 BC. Hence in the above quotation, counting from 4025 BC. forward 6,000 years, we arrive at 1976. Since then of course the date of Adams creation has been altered yet again and so we are now fixed on 1975 as the potential year of doom.

Oddly enough, in 1963 the Society, published All Scripture Is Inspired Of God and Beneficial, in which they say, Whatever time elapsed between Adams creation and the end of the sixth day must be subtracted from the 5,988 years in order to give the actual length of time from the begin­ning of the seventh day until now. It does no good to use Bible chronology for speculating on dates that are still future in the stream of time.

It seems to me the Society would do well to accept its own advice, and stop this absurd mathematics.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.II Pg.7

April 1972

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Dear Bro. Turner:

 

What should be the extent of association between a Christian and another Christian who has "left the church," never assembles with the saints and lives in worldly manner?

Reply:

The Christian will be "in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves -- ,". (2TI.2:24-26) A "meek" spirit (GAL.6:1) is humbled self-control (see Vine); ever seeking, reaching out for, yet cautiously avoiding contamination by or condoning of the evil. (JUDE:22-23) Within the grounds of such seeking there will be "association" or contact, of necessity.

There is a marked discrepancy in the non-carnal warfare with sin which Paul teaches (2CO.10:-S) and the punishment-by-boycott which some seem to see in 1CO.5:11 and 2TH.14, in "have no company with". How can the snobbish cold-shoulder, "cross the-street-to-avoid", attitude accord with MAT.5:47? ("If ye salute your brethren only... do not even the publicans so?") If we are not careful we will turn the disciplinary (teaching) "rebuke" of disfellowship, into self-pleasing, vindictive vengeance-taking -- and lose our own souls in the process. Read carefully, ROM.12:13-21. Following the "have no company with him" of 2TH.3:14, is "Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother".

The "association which Pau1 condemned (1CO.5:etc.) is one which condones, sanctions, encourages, and hence "fellowships" sin. We can never strengthen our thinking on disfellowship until we are content with the NT use of "fellowship". The "eating with", "receiving into your house", and we11-wishing (2JO.10,11) are interpreted by their context as jointly sharing" in the evil. Under certain circumstances one may eat with the unbeliever -- but not to the point of "fellowship" with his sin (1CO.10:27,28). We are to give our enemy food and drink (ROM.12:20), but not under circumstances that sanction his evil. (cf.,MAR.9:41) JESUS ate with sinners among His Jewish brethren (LUK.15:2) but it was for the purpose of and in the process of reaching for their souls. (LUK.5:30-f)

"Let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican, (MAT.18:17) means to consider as "canceled" those ties that had, formerly, characterized your association with him in Christ. This does not sever all relationships (such as mother-to-son) but it calls upon us to give Christ and His cause priority over all else. (LUK. 14:26-f)

One thing more -- disfellowship can never accomplish more in the correction of the unfaithful, than "fellowship" meant to that one when he was "faithful". It may be necessary for the protection of the faithful (1CO.5:6) but its corrective effect upon the sinner depends upon the sense of loss and "shame" he feels -- "that he may be ashamed". (2TH.3:14) Vine says this means to "turn one upon himself". (cf., TIT.2:8)

May God help us to correct the ugly, pride-satisfying smugness that has so often accompanied discipline.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.II Pg.8

April 1972

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

When a California church bought a building from a denomination that was moving to different quarters, they gained two new members in the process. It seems two Methodist joined the Church of Christ rather than leave the building they loved. The Methodist didnt lose any one, and the church of the Lord did not gain any one. The two were converted to the building, and they remained true to their first love.

It happens quite often with varied details. People are bound to external forms, places or other people, and these material ties are stronger by far than their convictions concerning the worship and service of God. They do not love the Lord; they like the suit He chanced to wear. We would surely be startled if we could borrow Gods X-Ray and see why people maintain their various religious affiliations. Or see our own heart— One says, I put hard-earned money into this building and they are not about to run me off. Another, I was married in this building, and Ill have my funeral here. Family and so­cial ties account for many. Some have been Church of Christers or Baptist for many generations, and consider it a sort of family obligation, at least while they are at home. When they move to another state they have no ties whatsoever.

Within a community when differences arise among brethren, such folk are left without chart or compass. It is so sad to hear people who we sup­posed to have scriptural convictions say, I just dont know what to do— I like people on both sides. Having never really been converted to Christ the teachings of Christ on the issues move them not. So they usually, stay with the building.

Later they may become disgusted by the antics of their brethren, but by now they have been so prejudiced against the antis or the liberals that they would cease all pretense of worship rather than change buildings.

I do not believe the situation would be measurably helped by abandoning all buildings and meeting under a tree. It is the heart that must be changed— in each individual, in each generation. Cant you just hear some old fellow say, My pappy worshipped under this oak, and I aint about to change to some modernistic fruitless mulberry.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.III Pg.1

May 1972

Healthful Doubts

Robert F. Turner

Francis Bacon wrote, If we begin with certainties, we shall end in doubts; but if we begin with doubts, and are patient in them, we shall end in certainties.

And Oscar Hammerstein is credited with the following: Too many men be­come certain about too many things too early in their lives. Over-eager to have everything settled in their minds, they lack both the wisdom and the courage to expose their hastily adopted ideas to healthy doubts. They cling with blind passion to their false certainties and too often are ready to kill or be killed for them. In these immature absolutists lies the seed of tragedy. The earth is sick with them.

The certainties of a strong man are built on a structure of resolved doubts. By the time he reaches a conclusion, he has traveled the road of reason. Even then he will be tolerant of another mans beliefs, and willing always to compare them fairly with his own. The man with a civilized mind is neither afraid nor ashamed to change it.

Your uncritical loyalty to weak ideas can not make them strong. Be ever ready to let your ideas stand up and fight for themselves. Let them survive or die according to their merit. It is only in ideas honestly and bravely tested that you will find security.

Gods word puts it in a simple statement: Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. The Bereans were commended because they searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (1 Thess. 5:21 Acts 17:11) The word itself was confirmed — with signs following (Mk. 16:20), so that searchers for divine truth could approach it with confidence.

There is no virtue in doubting for doubts sake. The iconoclast is satisfied with the rubble of destroyed ideas; but the healthy doubts of a truth seeker drive him to objectively consider the source of truth, and be satisfied with nothing less. He questions that he might grow; and his loyalty to God is greater than party and creed. He seeks, and Jesus said he shall find. (Matt. 7:7-f.)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.III Pg.2

May 1972

That Gospel Blimp

Robert F. Turner

Have you read the little paper back called, The Gospel Blimp, by Joseph Bayley? (Zondervan Publ.) It is a satire on institutionalism as found in denominationalisrn, but it is not out of place among us.

Some brethren think something should be done about converting the beer-drinking, non-church-going neighbor; but no one considers getting personally acquainted, and making a direct, personal approach with the gospel of Christ. Instead, they form a company, raise thousands of dollars to buy a Gospel Blimp, hire some one to fly it; and the blimp trails JESUS SAVES banners, and drops gobs of literature on his house (and into his gutters). Before the story is finished the usual problems of institutionalism are met — including the inner politics, preservation of public image at the expense of personal integrity, tie-ins with commercial interests (to raise more money), and the withdrawal of those who are finally disgusted with the whole mess.

Finally one man visits his neighbor, earns his confidence, and leads him to Christ, despite the Blimp. The author interprets his book in a closing chapter, saying: and the blimp? Why the wonderful Gospel Blimp is every impersonal, external means by which we try to fulfill our responsibility to witness to our neighbors. Gospel programs over the radio, messages on billboards or in tracts: these are some of our blimps. They either supplement our own personal witness or else theyre substitutes for involvement with our neighbors...

Today we have perfected various technical means of presenting the Christian message. We are hitting a mass market with mass gospel media. But in the process, we have often passed our personal responsibility on to blimps and loud speakers and impersonal organizations. But technical organizational means have one enormous lack: a human heart. They may multiply a voice ten thousand times, but remain only a voice.

I am frequently asked to suggest a program for personal work — and I have devised some dandies. But none of them will work for you and me. If brethren want to convert their neighbors, they will find a way to and will often succeed; for the heart goes where no Gospel Blimp can go.

So — a friend read this little book, and thought it would be great to use in converting our liberal, brethren from their errors of institutionalism. We should buy thousands of these and --- Hmmmmm!!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.III Pg.3

May 1972

Rash Praying

Dan S. Shipley

"Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thy heart be hasty to utter anything before God; for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few." In a context regarding the worship of God, these words from ECC.5:2 stand as an abiding reminder of the seriousness of prayer.

God's people are not only to "pray without ceasing" (ITH.5:17), they are to pray without hypocrisy and insincerity as well. There is no reason for prayer to become less meaningful with frequency -- it can be frequent and fresh if one's attitude is right. This is why posture of spirit ought to be emphasized in prayer more than bodily posture. "Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord.." (JAM.4:10) So, whether an individual stands or kneels, the heart must be bowed in prayer. When offered in the proper spirit, such prayers will always find expression in appropriate words -- so far as God is concerned anyway. A humble heart is the best antidote for a rash mouth in prayer -- and elsewhere too.

Another wise man says, "And in praying use not vain repetitions, as the Gentiles do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking". (MAT.6:7) Hasty utterances from a rash mouth and "vain repetitions" make a mockery of prayer and manifest irreverence and carelessness. Prayers that have been memorized or that come from "the top of the head" show little respect and honor for God. Neither do the many public prayers that are characterized by stereotyped and meaningless words.

Such formalistic and unoriginal prayers may become like so many "Hail Mary's", if we are not careful. Even our children must learn that true prayer is more than repeating a short poem or certain phrases over folded hands every night. Furthermore, the acceptability of prayer is not measured by its length. If the use of thoughtful and sincere expressions do shorten the prayer, then, as the wise man says, "let thy words be few". Many public prayers could be shortened in remembering that prayer is not for the purpose of informing God. This was a part of the mistake of the praying self-righteous Pharisee (LUK.18:10). Neither is the public prayer for the purpose of impressing men as Jesus shows in MAT.6:5. Remembering this might help to shorten such prayers too. As someone has well said, "In prayer it is better to have a heart without words than to have words without a heart".

An effective deterrent to rash praying is a constant awareness that "God is in Heaven, and thou upon the earth". Serious reflection upon the power, sovereignty, and majesty of God will help to promote attitudes of reverence and respect in prayer. This plus the realization of our utter dependence upon Him and our own worthlessness are absolutely essential to viewing prayer in proper perspective. The privilege of prayer is one of the greatest blessings bestowed upon the child of God in this life. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man does avail much (JAM.5:16). May we guard carefully against abusing this precious blessing.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.III Pg.4

May 1972

Fatal Logical Slip

Robert F. Turner

In many of the past arguments over church organization those opposing the MISSIONARY SOCIETY inadvertently accepted a slip in logic that has been a major gateway for churchhood institutionalism today. See if you can catch the slip.

Campbell conceived of the local church (community) as a unit of the universal church. In reality, the saints are the units of the universal church: citizens in a kingdom, children in a family, branches on a vine, etc. But with this basic fallacy as a foundation, Campbell urged some means whereby the universal church could cooperate. (He meant work as one.) The society was conceived as a media through which many churches could function as one with respect to certain evangelistic projects. It served as trustee for a churchhood (which they called brotherhood) fund, and its executive board directed such activities.

The Anti-s or non-progressives of this earlier day had a lot to say about the abuses of the society; or, when they dealt with the principles of organization, they said that the local church, with its elders and deacons was Gods plan for the organization of the church. Now watch it—the organization of the church. The context of argument was organization in and of the universal church. Then brethren replied that God had not authorized the missionary society (as a media for collective action of churches) but that God had authorized the local church with its elders and deacons — (as the media ——————). Now, you supply the missing links that logically must be understood here, in such a context, and you will see the slip that continues to plague many saints to this good day.

God authorized elders and deacons all right — for the local church. But He did not appoint them, for the local church, as the organizational media for the universal church. They are not the scriptural counterpart to mans schemes for universal church organization. The scriptures leave a great big NOTHING in this place; clearly saying to those who respect His authority, that he did not intend any such universal church function. God authorized elders, deacons, etc., as the means for collective work of saints in a local church. This is the divine counter- part to any human plan for local church organization.

History is filled with examples of religious movements which began with avowed determination to form nothing more than local churches, and keep them strictly independent and auto- nomous. But the party spirit creeps in, and we us and our church take on increasingly wide borders; until our work becomes the denominations work, with need for better and more definitive organizational structure. In our case, the local church with its elders became the stepping stone to area-wide, project-wide organization of churches. A segment of middle- of-the-roaders still contend that thousands of churches may work as one if it is under the elders of a local church. Others have moved on to churchhood work, under an executive board. Apparently, very few haw profited by the slip of the past.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.III Pg.5

May 1972

To Be A Preacher--

Robert F. Turner

One Sunday afternoon, at a singing, a carpenter and fellow —Christian asked that it be announced he had decided to be a preacher. Breth­ren were a bit surprised, but con­gratulated him on his desire to teach the truth and save souls.

That night he wore a dress—suit to worship, in place of his usual sports shirt and jacket. He was asked to lead a prayer, and we were made to wonder at the holy tone of voice he had suddenly acquired. Hmmmmm! I remember asking him about his plans for the future, and he was rather vague—— something about being available for appointments.

Several weeks later I received a letter from a church in California saying this man had asked to be considered as their preacher, and had given me as a reference. I replied that I thought he was a good man, but that to my knowledge he had no training or experience in public teaching. They hired him anyhow, on anothers recommendation, and he lasted several months. Back home again, a few chur­ches used him for appointments, and he was now an Evangelist. His stationery said so. I had little enough judgement to offer to help him in some studies and sermon—preparation, and there is no indication that he has ever forgiven me.

Another man came to my attention as a rather awkward but personable common laborer, who showed great sincerity when he tried to make his assigned short talk on Wednesday nights. He relied too much on his glib tongue, with not enough solid Bible preparation. When I made some suggestions along this line he swallowed hard, but thanked me, I noticed he began to use some books that had been placed in the church library, although reading did not come easy for him. His Bible talks improved, and he began to fill in with a full— grown sermon now and then. Today he preaches regularly for a church, even though he maintains his regular week­day job. He grins and denies the charge when people call him a preacher — and continues preaching.

I strongly recommend college— grade Bible studies, at the feet of well— educated competent men. Research pa­pers, testing, practice debates, etc. are desirable. Speech work, composi- tion, ancient history, and many other secular studies can greatly assist one in effectively presenting truth. But I am not saying a degree will make a preacher. As for professional preachers — I believe this attitude may be found among the ignorant as well as among the educated.

A preacher is one who preaches; who proclaims the good news and hungrily reaches out for lost souls. The more determined he is to teach others, the more willing he is to improve native talents and develop new ones. He trains for his work with great dedication — because he is deeply interested in his goal, i.e., truth taught and souls saved. He is going to preach, with tongue, pen, and example, regardless of appointment, or support. And churches seek this kind of man, not to make him a preacher, but to fellowship and encourage him in the work he is doing.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.III Pg.6

May 1972

How J. W.S Oust Elders

Robert F. Turner

From YEAR OF DOOM, 1975, by W. C. Stevenson (The inside story of Jehovahs Witnesses); we quote, p. 146-f.

It is important to see the Rutherford era as the gradual evolution of a theocratic organization, because this is in fact what it was, an ideal to which Rutherford dedicated every effort to realize. In the days of Russell the congregations had been run by elders elected by the members, thus making the congregations completely autonomous, independent of headquarters control. Step by step this arrangement was replaced by direct supervision by the Society.

The first step was taken when Rutherford outlined the work that was to be done in advertising the fact that Gods Kingdom now rules and will shortly bring an end to this evil world. A new magazine was introduced in 1919 called The Golden Age (now known as Awake), and this magazine was to be used in the house-to-house campaign which Rutherford launched. In a pamphlet entitled To Whom The Work is Entrusted (1919), Rutherford explained: The Golden Age work is a house-to-house canvass with the kingdom message, proclaiming the day of vengeance of our God and comforting them that mourn.

If a congregation wished to take part in this new campaign, it was asked to register as a service organization with the Society, who then appointed one of its members as the service director. In this way the Society gained control of the congregations house-to-house work, bringing it under its direct supervision. The elective elders however still had control of the congregations meetings.

In 1920 everyone in the congre- gations who engaged in house- to- house preaching was required to turn in a weekly report of his activities. The Society was really beginning to organize the work, and gradually to introduce the business methods which I have outlined in previous chapters. In 1922 the monthly broadsheet of in­structions began to be published encouraging all as valiant warriors to memorize Society — prepared testimonies, first called a canvass, in offering the Bible Literature (The Watchtower, May 15, 1955, page 299).

The word organization was insistently repeated year after year in the Societys publications, and finally in 1932 The Watchtower published two articles on The Jehovahs Organization which resulted in the abolition of the elective elders system to be replaced by the theocratic arrangement of Society — appointed servants. No longer would the congregation vote its elders into office. Rather they would be appointed by the Society headquarters staff. Quoting from the resolution on this matter which the congregations were required to adopt:

We... recognize.., that THE SOCIETY is the visible representative of the Lord on earth, and therefore request THE SOCIETY organize this company for service to appoint the various servants thereof, so that all of us may work together in peace, harmony, righteousness and complete unity. (SELAH!)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.III Pg.7

May 1972

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

 

Does "should not perish" in JOH.3:10 mean "ought not" implying that one "could" perish; or does it mean that the believer positively will not perish?

Reply:

I have long felt that this passage was abused: both by those who taught "security" once a person had believed and also by those who over-simplified the passage to mean "ought not" perish, if he would go ahead and obey.

"Should" is past tense of "shall" as the dictionary will show. But it is also used to form the conditional mood; and this is its use here. Marshall's interlinear translation says: "may not perish but may have life".

There is no separate word in the Greek for "should " or "may". These terms are part of the translation of the tense of the verbs "perish" and "have" and both are subjunctive in mood. (This quickly gets over my head but I am using standard reference works, available to all. ) Webster says of subjunctive: " -- representing the denoted action or state not as fact but as contingent, possible, doubtful, desirable, etc.".

The contingency, however, is given in the passage under consideration. It is on the condition that one "believeth in Him" that he should not perish; and that makes his safety depend upon continued faith in Christ. The error of the "security" advocate is in the assumption that this faith can take place at a point of time in the past, and then and there secure the one then involved for a time yet to come. The assurance is to one who is "believing" -- and this faith, with its fruits of submissive obedience must continue if the assurance is to continue. Saved by faith is not salvation "at the point of faith, and without further acts of obedience" as was once the wording of debate propositions. Faith is the motivation for a life of service. (JAM.2:7-26) It can be "shipwrecked" (1TI. 1:19), "denied" (5:8 ), "cast off" (5:12), or "erred concerning" (missing our aim) (6:21). One's faith can be "overthrown" (2TI. 2:1 8), or, with Paul as our example, we can "keep the faith", and receive a crown of righteousness. (2TI.4:7-8) I am aware of the varied uses of the word here, but this only emphasizes the point I seek to make. The "believer" goes far beyond one who mentally acquiesces to the fact that Jesus is the Christ. His "faith" (which is accounted unto him for righteousness" ) embraces his total response, and can in no sense be characterized as "faith only".

JOH.3:16 teaches truth; it has its own completeness as a statement of truth. We may go elsewhere and find other truths that enlarge and enhance our appreciation of this passage, but this also says something most vital and we should learn to stop here long enough to appreciate and savor its goodness. We must not be driven from this rare treat by our fear of those unscriptural uses to which the verse has been plot. The passage, as given by the Holy Spirit, is well able to defend itself to the glory of God.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.III Pg.8

May 1972

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Before this paper can come to your hands two brethren in an Ohio river city will have met for public discussion of some points of difference regarding the work of the local church in general benevolence. If they meet to try and whip one—another, the cause of Christ in their city may have to overcome another major set­back. If they meet objectively, to fairly determine their exact points of difference, and then to present their respective convictions with the scriptural proofs each feels is appropriate, a major advance in understanding and brotherhood will have taken place. We hope and pray they will take their obligation seriously.

There is nothing wrong with public or private discussion of differences; in fact, they are right. (Gal. 2:11-f. Acts 15: 1-f.) We thus prove all things and give an answer for our hope. (1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:15) We can scarcely justify our claim to objective search for truth in the absence of a willingness to measure our conclusions against those of others, with Gods word as the final rule. But all scriptural justification for such discussion is lost when or if it degenerates into a scrap of wits and polemic tricks. We once read a formula for reasonable disagreement. Next

time you get into a group discussion which threatens to become more emotional than logical, try this little trick: Stop the discussion and ask everyone to abide by the following rule: Each person can speak for himself only after he has first repeated the ideas and feelings of the previous speaker accurately and to that persons satisfaction. The lively pace of controversy may slow down somewhat. On the other hand, the level of communication will probably be considerably higher. (Olds Observer; Vol. 1, No. 6)

Most of us have heard (not to say participated in) discussions when none seemed to pay serious attention to the others. Each spoke his part, then withdrew into himself to think up something to say the next time around. Even error is best defeated when we take time to understand it.

This practice of withdrawing into ourselves, hearing only what we want to hear, can have startling results. One girl to another: Well, we have had a slight argument — a difference of opinions. I would like a big wedding, and he would like to break the engagement.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.IV Pg.1

June 1972

Pain In The Neck

Robert F. Turner

As Joe entered the store, John was leaving. Joe spoke pleasantly, but John looked the other way, and pre tended not to hear. John thought, I guess that will show him his place.

Joe thought, Poor John — seems so distracted these days. He must be worried about something.

John walked toward the bank, a bit pleased with himself that he had had no company with that anti, Joe, but hoping to avoid further confrontations. His conscience bothered him, just a little. But Joe was also angling across the street toward the bank, and as John noticed this he turned abruptly and went into the drug store instead. He thought, Ill not do business in the same building with that Joe.

Joe thought, I believe John is ill. He did look a bit pale.

So Joe also changed directions, skipped the bank, and followed John into the drug store. John saw him coming and almost panicked. Feeling trapped, he turned his head stiffly to one side, pushed his nose high into the air, and walked past Joe and out to his car. He thought, This will burn him to a crisp.

But as John fumbled for the car door handle, nose still in the air, Joe sprang forward and opened the door for him. So sorry to see you have that crick in your neck John, he said. Ill be happy to drive you home if you wish.

John shook his head, and mumbled what passed for No, thank you; and somehow managed to start the car, back it out, and head for home. He was too far into his act now to explain or change it; and he was half­way home before he relaxed his neck.

As he pulled into the driveway, his wife came out to meet him. Joe called, she said, and told me he was worried about your being on the highway. John, you do look sick.

That night John rolled and tumbled fitfully. He really felt sick.

Joe slept well, thank you!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.IV Pg.2

June 1972

Now Abideth--Love.

Robert F. Turner

One great blessing enjoyed by all who are written up by LOVING editors, is the assurance that when an injustice is called to the attention of one who LOVES them, it will be promptly corrected.

In a recent editorial called No Limit to Loving, (Firm Foundation, May 2, 72) bro. Lemmons wrote, A local contractor in Austin, working on a church building used for worship by a factious group of brethren, chided the leader of that congregation about the benevolent work being done by the church in the only way they taught it could be done scripturally. The leader first admitted that they were doing not nearly enough. When pressed, he said, I dont know of any right now. May we suggest that love is not as great as it should be or it would prompt something to be done for the unfortunate".

Is bro. Lemmons completely unaware that some lovable brethren recognize a distinction in the work of saints as individuals, and that which they are authorized to perform collectively? (Ex.: If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed. 1 Tim. 5:16) It is the same principle of distinction that bro. Lemmons recognizes when he contends that individual saints may support colleges, but the church should not. On this basis that factious group of brethren (whom bro. Lemmons loves) could be manifesting generous benevolence to various saints and sinners, and supporting general welfare programs of their community and nation, although at that time (right now) no benevolent funds were being dispensed from the church treasury.

Once bro. Lemmons realizes this he will hasten to correct this injustice for Love does not ignore right. It does not ignore justice. It does not ignore feelings. And there could be nothing more unloving than the use of an otherwise beautiful editorial on LOVE, to take a swat at brethren with whom one disagrees.

Even the disciplinary aspects of love are not vindictive, but evidence a desire to bring all men to the rule of God in Christ. Paul LOVED those in Thessalonica, of whom he wrote, If any would not work, neither should he eat. (2 Thess. 3:10) Count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. (Vs. 15) If bro. Lemmons recognizes no distinction in individual and church obligations, he will surely teach us so — in LOVE, and with SCRIPTURES.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.IV Pg.3

June 1972

Free From All Men

Dan S. Shipley

For though I was free from all men, I brought myself under bondage to all, that I might gain the more. (2 Cor.9:19) While the apostle Paul recognized a sense of indebtedness to all men, he was never obligated to any man in such a way as to hinder his obligations to the Lord. How all Christians, especially evangelists, need to be free and under bondage in this same sense!

Paul was free from men because he was not preaching for money. Even though he stoutly maintains his right to be supported by the Corinthians, he foregoes that right in the interests of this particular work. When he did receive wages it did not flavor his teaching; he taught the same things in every church (1 Cor. 4:17). Any man whose teaching is tempered by financial considerations places himself under bondage to men — but in the wrong sense. lie is no longer free to teach all truth by which souls are gained. Those who will not endure sound doctrine always seem able to secure teachers after their own lusts (2 Tim. 4:3). Whether by tacit or declared agreement, such teachers know what subjects they are not to bear down on. Undoubtedly, wages have enticed many to look at certain Bible truths in a compromising light—or at least to muzzle their convictions. Any evangelist who can endure where sound doctrine cannot is never free from all men — he is really their own hireling, to their detriment and his.

Neither was Paul obligated to men because of his sins. Nobody ever had anything on Paul that could place him in a compromising position. Regrettably, the influence of some is seriously impaired by their unbecoming conduct and bad habits.

Such are not unlike the elderly man lamenting over being called a nasty old snuff-dipper by a female friend. When asked about his reply to such a charge he confessed, Well, I couldnt say much at the time — I happened to have a dip of snuff in my mouth. Likewise many Christians become hamstrung by their own sins. With Paul we should be able to say, Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ.

Furthermore, Paul had no respect- of-person obligations to men. He both spake and applied the whole counsel of God without favoritism, even to rulers and fellow-apostles. Having done this he could rightly claim to be pure from the blood of all men. He reminds Timothy to do nothing by partiality (1 Tim. 5:21). To shield friends and family (or any other sinner) from Bible truth is like hiding life-giving medicine from a sick man. The most urgent need of every sinner is the forgiveness offered through the gospel of Christ. How strange that some Christians would be more concerned about bedside manners than healing the patient; with the favor of men more than their salvation! Such prove themselves to be more the slaves of public opinion than of Christ.

Consequently, we must remain free from all men in order to serve their best interests and gain the more. Our ties with men must never become shackles to hinder their salvation — or to hinder our walking with God.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.IV Pg.4

June 1972

Capsule History

Robert F. Turner

New Testament church identity is not determined by organic, historic succession. Two lines of succession may have extended from the division Paul foretold for Ephesus (Acts 20:29-31). One could not say one line was more right than the other on the basis of origin — and the first perverseness would have to be judged by Gods word. We are far afield when we consider a thing right because the great middle section of a movement accepts it. (2 Cor. 10:12-f.)

Our history is important, not as a standard of truth, but to give us an historic awareness of the SEARCH for the Ancient Order. And dates, the despair of history students, may humble us as we see ourselves as just another point of reference in the vast movement of time.

In 1800 Barton W. Stone was awakening to the need for Bible-bound rather than creed—bound religion. He and his followers broke with Presbyterianism, and by 1805 dissolved the Springfield Presbytery to form inde­pendent Christian churches.

Thomas Campbell, in a distinct movement, had formed a cell for independent Bible study and by 1809 had adopted the principle of Speak Where the Bible Speaks, Be Silent Where the Bible is Silent. This forced a rejection of infant sprinkling and led to many other reforms. Churches following these ideas joined the Redstone Baptist Association, but as they drew closer to the N.T. pattern they broke with the Baptist, formed their own Mahoning Association; then in 1830, dissolved this to operate as independent self-governing churches. Campbell and Stone forces united. But some, including A. Campbell, kept alive the desire for an organization of churches, and in 1849 American Christian Missionary Society was formed as a media for collective activities. Pro's and Con's of the matter developed liberal and conservative segmentations, as respect Bible authority; and by 1851 the papers had a brief exchange re: instrumental music in worship. Some churches were using the instruments by 1860, and in 1864 Pendleton presented a reversal of the Silence argument, saying if a thing was not forbidden in scripture, it was acceptable. Arguments were hot and churches began to divide into so called Anti and Pro­gressive groups. About 80% accepted the instrument and societies, and became what we today know as Christian Churches or Disciples; while the Anti groups were generally known as churches of Christ. The U.S. census recognized the division in 1906.

Churches of Christ grew in number, and as they fattened many forgot —- many never knew — the basis for claim to N.T. church identity. By 1946 organizational issues were revived. The new generation SEARCHED anew for the ancient order — and some took a conservative, some a liberal view of divine authority. Inter-church projects used brotherhood elders or executive boards as their media for operation; and objectors were again Anti. By 1965 lines were fairly well drawn.

Is your hope in a date, a segment of a movement, or in the Living Word?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.IV Pg.5

June 1972

What Shall We Do?

Robert F. Turner

The New Testament consists of 27 Books, as can be determined by a glance at the index. A casual reading of the first three will reveal that they are biographical, telling the life of Christ; and the fourth, also covering His personal ministry, puts emphasis upon His deity. (See Jn. 20:30-31) It doesnt take a genius to understand this — it just requires ordinary intelligent reading.

The fifth book is a history of the early church—or, if you prefer, an account of what happened following the resurrection and ascension of the Lord. It tells how his followers took His message to the world, convinced people of His resurrection, and converted them to Christ. This book is often called the Book of Conversion and is a fine reference for learning what one must do today in order to be a true follower of Christ.

The books following Acts are addressed to Christians. They contain much helpful and needful information concerning Gods plan of salvation, but are best understood if read from a Christians viewpoint. They back­up information one may learn from the first five books.

Now, assuming that you believe the Bible to be the word of God, and that you would like to be a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, does it not follow that you should read what the Lord asked His disciples to preach in all the world; and then read what was preached, believed and obeyed by the disciples of the first century? Is not this the logical, sensible way to know Christs will, and do it?

At the close of Matthews record (28:19-20) he says Christ commanded: Go ye therefore, and teach all na­tions, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:... Marks record has it: Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (16:15-16) Luke says, that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (24:47) (Be sure to read the complete record in each case.)

After the ascension, when the disciples had tarried, and received the Holy Ghost, they spake as the Spirit rave them utterance. (Acts 2:4) When a multitude gathered, and had heard the message concerning Christs resurrection, etc., they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (2:37-f)

Verse 41 reads, Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. (Please, read the whole text)

Can you honestly say that you do not now know what to do to become a follower of Jesus Christ?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.IV Pg.6

June 1972

Independent H. Leo Boles

Robert F. Turner

The Nov. 10, 1932 issue of the GOSPEL ADVOCATE really stirs memories. Foy E. Wallace, Jr. was editor, and bro. Cled wrote Sword Swipes. C. D. Plum wrote that Possibly the latest thing that now threatens the church is premillennialism. Regarding Charity Work of the Church bro. W. Claude Hall said, nothing must be used but the church as an organized body.

But we quote in this and our next issue, MORE ABOUT HOW TO DO MISSIONARY WORK, by the beloved and respected bro. H. Leo Boles. To save space we omit the text of scriptures cited. Our brief comments will be reserved for the following issue.

======================

The study of the New Testament reveals the fact that churches raised and distributed funds for two general purposes— namely, (1) to support the preaching of the gospel and (2) to help the poor. The churches acted in this work as individual and independent congregations. The missionary received help from the church that sent him out, from those in the field where he labored, and from other churches; but in all of this work there was no common fund for churches, no central church with a treasurer to receive the funds from the other chinches, no general treasury to take care of the funds, no call from any church to other churches to help them do the work which fell in their province to do.

We have an account of the relief of the poor saints in New Testament times. The churches of three provinces under divine order contributed to this work, but there was no such extensive collection of funds made in the apostolic age for sending a preacher into a destitute field. No church consulted any other church. They did not form any organic cooperative plan or union with the other churches. Each church, guided by the instruction from God that it had, acted upon its own independent responsibility. Each church collected its own gift and sent by its own messengers.... (1 Cor. 16:1-3) In this we have specific instruction to the individual congregation as to how it was to proceed to make its collection and the distribution that should be made of it. In writing to the church at Rome, Paul said... (Rom. 15:25-31) This shows Pauls earnest desire that the contribution from the Gentiles to the Jewish Christians would be acceptable to them; that they would appreciate the gifts from their Gentile brethren.

Speaking further on this question, Paul said... (2 Cor. 8:16-24) Again, we have the example of independent church activities; we have the individual churches acting upon their own initiative and liberality in helping the poor. By whom were the visiting agents appointed? They were not appointed by a convention of delegates from the churches in the provinces of the Gentile Christians. These churches had no convention and took no cooperative action in appointing and sending the men to carry the contribution to the poor saints in Jerusalem. Paul sent them to make up the afore-promised bounty and have it ready by the time that he arrived.(2 Cor. 9:3-5) (To be continued——)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.V Pg.6

July 1972

Mission Work- Boles,

Robert F. Turner

We here conclude an article by the beloved H. Leo Holes. This early effort to stem institutional digression was first printed, of all places, in the Gospel Advocate; Nov. 10, 1932. What a pity it was not better heeded.

The churches on the first day of the week, when they met, took up their collection and appointed their own messengers to hear their gift to Jerusalem. Paul did not appoint an agent to go among the churches to get them to promise to do anything; they had already promised as independent and individual churches to help in this matter, and the men sent by Paul were to encourage each church to be ready with its gift when he arrived. Neither did any church appoint an agent to go among other churches to get them to promise to help in this matter; neither did delegates or representatives from all of these churches appoint a man or men to go among the churches and solicit them to give to the helping of the poor. Each congregation acting in its own independent way made the promise without solicitation or persuasion or any outside influence;...

The example of raising a bounty for the poor ... is the nearest approach to the cooperation of churches that we find in the New Testament, and these examples show conclusively that each church exercised its own autonomy and independent activity in this work. This was for the relief of the poor saints in Jerusalem and Judea. Even if these churches cooperated in relieving the poor, as many want to do today, yet we would still be lacking in example of such cooperation in having the gospel preached in foreign lands or at home.... this fact proves that God did not intend for his churches to cooperate in preaching the gospel, as some brethren are trying to get them to do now

A summary of the teachings of the New Testament gives us the following facts with respect to missionary work. (1) In New Testament times the churches recommended and sent out preachers of the gospel into the mission field. (Acts 13:1-3; 14:26; 15:40) The church that had preachers to spare in the foreign field recommended them, and they went under the recommendation and encouragement of their own congregation. The apostle do not necessarily belong to this class, as they were sent out by the Lord. (2) The preachers who were sent out returned to the church that sent them and reported the work which they had done. (Acts 14:27) The missionaries were responsible to the church that sent them out, and hence reported back to it. (3) The church which the missionaries belonged and from which they went looked after their conduct and called them to account for violations or supposed violations of duty. (Acts 11:1-18; 15:1-29) (4) The churches communicated directly with the preachers which they supported. (Phil. 4:15-18; 1 Thess. 1:7-8) We should have these matters and Scriptural examples clearly in mind as they are instructive to us in carrying on the same kind of work today. We should ever bear in mind the churches are to act independently and are not in any way to he tied by an human method cooperation.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.IV Pg.7

June 1972

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Please list those things that make a sound church. K.C.

Reply:

This is really a request for a human Creed, a Confession of Faith, a sectarian standard by which "we" (the "sound ones" of course) can readily identify "our" kind. I do not believe the querest is aware of this---but that is all the more reason for using the question.

At best, a "Creed" is what the writer believes God's word teaches. I believe God's word teaches certain things, and I want you to believe it teaches these things (this is common to all Bible teachers---even to those who believe it teaches "different things to different people") but each person must answer to God, not to his fellow man. (Rom. 14:4-5,12)

Each generation has its own problems and points of emphasis. I could list some of the "issues" of our day, and tell you what I believe God says on these maters; but one might find a church that taught and practiced each of these things as I believe it should, and still be "unsound" before God---for two reasons (1) Any list, short of the complete revelation of God's will, is incomplete. (2) My judgement as to what is right and wrong is fallible, subject to error.

Institutionalism, a "social" or "this world" emphasis, misconceptions re. the Holy Spirit's function, and a "party" or denominational concept of the church are major "issues" now. But these are no more important than a lack of holiness among "members," or our failure to work diligently for the salvation of souls in all the world. There is no stopping place short of the ideal perfection toward which we are constantly to press.

Every sect has its list of "those things that make a sound church." The variety in these "lists" (written or just "understood") makes the difference in the sects. Even "accept and fellowship all differences" is just another human philosophy, based on a perverted and unbiblical concept of love. It denies the authority of God.

Any error in which we persist, to which we hold regardless of God's word, for which we brook no scriptural rebuke or admonition, is enough to mark us as "unsound." There can be no "whole, healthy" (see Vine) saints or churches in the absence of a humble, submissive attitude toward God; respecting His will and "striving together for the faith of the gospel." (Phil. 1:27-f) A good appetite for the right food is a sign of health, and a sound church "hungers and thirsts after righteousness" accepting straight Bible preaching (Matt. 5:6; 2 Tim. 4:) It is not without reason, therefore, that scriptural elders and strong preaching mark a sound church. However, even here some may "hang on" who do not support, encourage or practice such preaching---and trouble is in the making.

In the final analysis, particular doctrines and practices identify as "sound" or "unsound" because they reveal our love, faith, and submission to God in Christ---or the lack of it.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.IV Pg.8

June 1972

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

When a California church bought a building from a denomination that was moving to different quarters, they gained two new members in the process. It seems two Methodist joined the Church of Christ rather than leave the building they loved. The Methodist didnt lose any one, and the church of the Lord did not gain any one. The two were converted to the building, and they remained true to their first love.

It happens quite often with varied details. People are bound to external forms, places or other people, and these material ties are stronger by far than their convictions concerning the worship and service of God. They do not love the Lord; they like the suit He chanced to wear. We would surely be startled if we could borrow Gods X-Ray and see why people maintain their various religious affiliations. Or see our own heart — One says, I put hard-earned money into this building and they are not about to run me off. Another, I was married in this building, and Ill have my funeral here. Family and social ties account for many. Some have been Church of Christers or Baptist for many generations, and consider it a sort of family obligation, at least while they are at home. When they move to another state they have no ties whatsoever.

Within a community when differences arise among brethren, such folk are left without chart or compass. It is so sad to hear people who we sup­posed to have scriptural convictions say, I just dont know what to do— I like people on both sides. Having never really been converted to Christ the teachings of Christ on the issues move them not. So they usually, stay with the building.

Later they may become disgusted by the antics of their brethren, but by now they have been so prejudiced against the anti's or the liberals that they would cease all pretense of worship rather than change buildings.

I do not believe the situation would be measurably helped by aban­doning all buildings and meeting under a tree. It is the heart that must be changed— in each individual, in each generation. Cant you just hear some old fellow say, My pappy worshipped under this oak, and I aint about to change to some modernistic fruitless mulberry.