Plain Talk

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XVIII No.XI Pg.4
January 1982
Striving For Unity
Robert F. Turner

The Lord's prayer (Jn. 17:) is widely quoted — in part — to emphasize the need for unity among God's people. I challenge you to study the chapter carefully, looking for the means of attaining and maintaining that unity.

There are three parts to be considered: Christ's prayer for Himself, for the Apostles, and for those who "believe on me through their word." In Christ's prayer for Himself (vs. 1-5) he says he came to earth to give eternal life, and he identifies this with "knowing" the Father and Son. His work on earth glorified the Father, and as this is finished (in the crucifixion) he asks to be returned to His original glory with the Father.

As the Father was glorified in the Son, so Christ is glorified in His Apostles (v.10). Also, in the second part of His prayer Christ says He has manifested God's name (v.6) and given them the Father's word (vs. 6, 8, 14) to the end they may "know" God (receiving, believing, and keeping that word — vs. 6, 8; see 1 Jn. 2:3-5). Being so "kept" the Apostles are "one, even as we are" (v. 11). They are set apart, sanctified, through truth (vs. 17-19).

Finally, Christ prays for all whom the Apostles teach. The "glory which thou hast given unto me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one; I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one..." (vs. 22-23). These too have "known" God (v. 25), as a result of having received the declared truth.

Is it asking too much to expect a discerning reader to notice certain recurring thoughts? First, there is divine GLORY, in which the Father and Son are ONE. Then there is DECLARATION of that Glory (via manifestation and teaching of God's word); and SHARING in that Glory, as the taught come to KNOW God. It is in this way that those other than deity, come to be ONE with deity.

The oneness of believers for which Jesus prayed was the common quality; to be found among all who partake of the divine image. Unity exists because they are one. The divine plan is not some organizational or creedal mold that forces heterogeneous people into the same society; it changes the people, in very essence as respect their spiritual life, so that the are now homogeneous, and therefore ONE. "I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one." The ideal (and it is indeed an ideal) is God-like people; having the mind of Christ (Phil. 2:5). in word and deed doing all in His name (Col. 3:17) transformed from glory to glory in His image (2 Cor. 3:18), and all this to the glory of God (1 Pet. 4:11).

The ideal nature of this unity in no different from being holy as God is Holy (1 Pet. 1:16), pure as He is pure (1 Jn. 3:3), etc. It is not attained in the absolute sense; but its principles are accepted, it is our constant goal, the mark toward which we press. If we fail to recognize the ideal aspect of this unity, we may consider the level of our attainment as the standard, and begin to measure others by ourselves. This can defeat the unity for which Christ prayed and promote our brand of sectarianism.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XVIII No.XI Pg.5

January 1982

Use Your Bible

Dan S. Shipley

Intro. "WE PERSUADE MEN" (2 Cor. 5:9-11) 1. Definition of persuade (Gr. PEITHO)

a. Vine: "..signifies to apply persuasion, to prevail upon or win over, to persuade, bringing about a change of mind by the influence of reason or moral considerations..."

b. Only persuaded men change & God only persuades by gospel (1 Cor. 1:18-21) (Not direct operation. of HS, experiences, feelings) etc.)

2. Why Paul persuaded men

a. To be well-pleasing to God, vs. 9 b. To prepare self and others for judgment, v.10 c. Out of fear for the Lord, v. 11

I. THINGS MEN NEED TO BE PERSUADED ABOUT A. Their sins (Jn. 16:8)

1. As David, Herod, Pentecostians, etc. 2. A sense of sin essential to repentance

B. Their Saviour

1. The remedy for sin, Matt. 1:21 2. Thus, Acts 28:23 (the persuaded believed); Acts 5:42; Jn. 8:24

C. Their accountability to God

1.V.10, "For we must all be made manifest before the judgment seat.." 2. Rom. 14:12; Acts 17:30,31 (implies consequences of sin)

II. HOW MEN ARE TO BE PERSUADED A. With the word of God

1. Seen in story of Lazarus &. rich mar:, Lk. 16:27-31 2. Rom. 1:16; called "word of reconciliation", 2 Cor. 5:19 3. Men come to Christ. only as they hear & learn word of God, Jn. 6:45 4. NOT persuaded with gimmicks, food & frolic, appeal to carnal

B. With a sense of urgency ("the night cometh")

C. With a spirit of boldness (Eph. 6:20; Acts 4:29; NOT apologetic, etc.

D. With love and genuine concern (Eph. 4:15) and longsuffering (2 Tim. 4:2)

III. WHO IS TO DO THE PERSUADING? A. Faithful men (2 Tim. 2:2)

1. Only persuaded people can persuade others 2. Men, like Paul, who fear the Lord & want to please Him 3. Those who are persuaded about the judgment and its consequences

IV. WHEN ARE MEN TO BE PERSUADED? A. Now! (2 Cor. 6:2)

1. "As we have opportunity" (Gal. 6:10); lit. "while we can" 2. Most intend, plan & prepare while opportunities pass & sinners die. NOW is the time to be involved in the great. work of persuading men!

[RETIREDFAN1]

.XVIII No.XI Pg.6

January 1982

The Ox In The Ditch

Robert F. Turner

"The ox is in the ditch!" So, duty's demands are abruptly dismissed. No one can argue with the "law of the ox in the ditch," can they? But where is that law? The Sabbath law is defined in Ex. 20:10-11; 23:12-13 and Deut. 5:12-14. There is no "ox in the ditch" exemption in any of those passages. Where then is it? It is not there! The appeal is not an argument of rights — of law; it is a plea for mercy. Mercy was the point of Jesus (Lk. 14:1-5). The Jew had no "right" to get the ox out of the ditch on the Sabbath day. He plainly violated the law. Mercy — compassion pardoned the violation because of the circumstance. That it was a breach of law is not ignored. Maybe we should think of this before we make our "ox in the ditch" appeal. We plead guilty to the sin and ask for mercy.

"The ox is in the ditch!" Ah yes, but how did he get there? That makes a difference. The appeal assumes an accident — something not anticipated. This surely cannot be used to justify deliberate plans which prevent doing our duty.

"I couldn't be in the assembly — my ox was in the ditch." I find out he had a headache, was groggy-headed, felt terrible, and was in bed all Sunday morning. Sounds sick, right? He was — after staying up with the TV late late show 'til 3:30 in the morning. Another brother got "caught on-the-road" and could not "get to the evening assembly." He did not mention he planned a picnic and a 200 mile sightseeing tour Sunday afternoon. I think I see tracks where the ox was pushed into the ditch. "My ox is in the ditch! I am so busy I just can't get to study and do spiritual work like I ought." And he is not lying! His candle is burning at both ends — he does not have time for anything else. He has two jobs, Lion's Club, PTA, political action committee, little league, and a busy social schedule. No time is left, but it is no accident. Those commitments were all planned. Somebody agreed to every activity. That old ox did not stumble into the ditch; he had help. "I will have to cut my giving — my ox is in the ditch. I can hardly pay my bills." True. New cars, TV, house, boat, etc., takes all the money. It seems the Lord should have been considered first, nevertheless, whose name is at the bottom of those credit applications? I doubt the ox signed a single one of them! Someone asked for every payment. The ox was pushed.

And how long is the ox to stay in the ditch? Is this every Sabbaths plea? That makes a difference. We may foolishly put our ox in the ditch, but we should promptly get him out. A brother explains his job has interfered with his duty — ox in the ditch. He does not mention that this is the ordinary demands of his job and it will be this way his whole working life. Brother, pull the ox out!

Brethren, our plans must be to do what is right — to be dependable in performing our duty. Interruptions should be temporary and unavoidable. Worse than a failure to measure up, is planning to fail.

Joe Fitch; 6326 Peacepipe; San Antonio, TX.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XVIII No.XI Pg.7

January 1982

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Please write something on 1 Cor. 11:1-16. (A new P.T. reader.) M.B.

Reply:

This was discussed in V.15, N.8, P.7; and in V.8-N.7-P.7 — for those who have bound volumes of P.T.

Paul says, "the head of the woman is the man." This is no more "degrading" than his statement, "the head of Christ is God;" but is an order established by deity for beneficial ends. Such headship is a valid principle everywhere, for all time; but the way one showed this submission was subject to change. Even when saying, "we have no such custom" (as women with heads uncovered, v.16) he put the manifestation of subjection in the realm of "custom."

When Paul wrote this, a woman who prayed or prophesied with uncovered head, failed to keep her proper place with respect to man. There seems to be pretty good historical reason to believe this was a custom not limited to "worship service" but in all public appearances. Kittel says this was a Jewish custom, chiefly in the east, but not common among Greeks. No lace doily or modern "chapel veil" is under consideration. The LXX uses a like word re. a supposed "covered" harlot — disguising herself by veiling (Gen. 38:15).

Some make a reasonable case for considering the hair as the covering, giving stress to the relation of v.14 to v.13, and the summation of v.15: for her hair is given her for a covering." (Write Jesse Jenkins, 200 Parkway Dr., Cedar Park, TX. 78613 if you wish a tract setting forth this explanation.) Various commentaries deal with "covering" as both hair and artificial; most of them seeming to treat the first section as having to do with an artificial covering.

For my part, it seems the way Paul argues his case puts the covering in its proper category (subject to custom, relative to changing times). He appeals to their sense of "shame" and that has the latitude of varying cultures. What clearly shocks one culture may have no such effect on another. He says, "judge in yourselves" as though they were equipped to handle this matter subjectively. "Is it comely" (or "proper") like the preceding must find its authority in concepts of that day and time. And the "nature is certainly not saying hair will not grow long on a man. "Nature" is used in four or five senses — here, as the "long-standing practice" of society. (See McKnight notes on Eph. 2:3)

I believe Paul is stating a divine principle (man is over woman) and saying this should be demonstrated or manifested by appropriate dress, i.e., whatever dress indicates that submission or subjection to the society in which you live. A distinction in man and woman (via dress and hair length) is clearly indicated, and should be maintained. In some places of today's world an unveiled (short-haired?) woman may be considered immodest, or an affront to man. If this is the case where you live, then modesty, propriety, and general public judgment dictate that you be dressed and groomed to show proper respect to your head.

[RETIREDFAN1]

XVIII No.XI Pg.8

January 1982

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

In Gal. 2:11-f. Paul reports an example of hypocrisy on the part of the apostle Peter. He gave in to peer pressure, and separated himself from Gentile saints when influential Jewish brethren were present. Paul says, "I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned." Paul used this as a bridge between proof of a divine source for his message and Apostleship, and the second section of the Galatian letter, viz., justification by faith and not by law. Paul tells us some of the specific things he said to Peter — see Gal. 2:14-f.

Would you like to know what Peter said in reply? I decided to ask that question of a Bible class that had studied the Galatian letter for some time. I gave them paper, and the following instructions: "Write here what Peter said in reply to Paul."

Some came to me with puzzled or even shameful look, saying, "I can't recall Peter saying anything." One girl, when asked what she put in the space provided, shook her head and showed me a blank paper. She was truly amazed when I told her she was a good student — no reply is recorded. But not all students were so perceptive — or lucky. I'm fully aware that some recognized the "trick" nature of the question, and were kidding the teacher; but I will share a few profound answers with you.

"Thanks Paul, I needed that!" "I'm not sure Peter did reply, but maybe he said, 'I am ashamed'!" "I told them what they wanted to hear." "People from Judea made me do it, but I knew better." "The Devil made me do it!" "You're right, I shouldn't have done that!" "I have sinned!" And if you want the full story: "Peter did not want Paul to talk too loud. Peter was afraid others would find out what he was doing, and if they did both groups (the Jews and the Gentiles) would have come looking for Peter and tear him to pieces for violating the rights (rites) of each group."

In case you have always wanted to know what Peter said, take your pick; and remember, you learned it from the highly reliable "Stuff About Things." Better to keep silence and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Or, for Bible reference see Prov. 17:27-28, Job 13:5.

[RETIREDFAN1]

.XVIII No.XII Pg.1

February 1982

Communication

Robert F. Turner

When brethren objectively appraise differences among "us," and discuss the means of unity, we hear repeatedly of the need for "communication." Everyone seems to understand there can be no working together, no getting to the bottom of "issues", no righting of wrongs, without communication. But do we desire communication strongly enough to do what it takes to achieve it?

To communicate, we must speak TO one another, not AT one another. The "other" party must be treated as a person — if you can take the truth — must be treated as you would like to be treated (Matt. 7:12).

We must listen in order to effectively communicate; and listen for something more than some "slip" by which we can form a polemic trap and polish our ego. We must understand the other's point of view — to teach him the truth we have, or (must I say it?) to learn the truth he has.

We must distinguish between our convictions, and absolute TRUTH. My concepts are NOT the divine standard. TRUTH is absolute, and all who know truth know the same things; but my convictions are based upon my relative knowledge of truth. I must learn to act upon my convictions, while continuing to study the truth standard higher than man. Strength, not weakness, makes one seek for more truth.

Communication that will produce Bible unity is not a conference of men, hammering out a position acceptable to all delegates. It is a pooling of minds that look to God's word for HIS "position" stated in inspired revelation. Both "sides" must be seeking TRUTH — something higher than and apart from both. I cannot ask you to come to me; you must not ask me to come to you. We must both be of the disposition to go to God.

And communication requires TRUST. That grows slowly, once a break has been made. It is rebuilt with small pieces of fairness, objectivity, and considerate treatment of one another. It must begin with self-examination — a willingness to see our own weakness. We must trust one another when we are convinced the other trusts in God.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XVIII No.XII Pg.2

February 1982

Making My Own Mistakes

Robert F. Turner

In the May and July issues of P.T. (1981) two editorials were devoted to false and foolish charges brought against this editor by Faith & Facts (?) quarterly. The only proof offered was a May. '75 article from P.T. and the conclusions drawn were so farfetched as to warrant little attention. Later a F&F letter stated, "you have not said in print or in your letter to me or in your articles what you have said in private..." That means I was publicly charged with being on a "headquarters staff" that was "cunning" in "quietly spreading" "heresies;" and the basis for such a charge was hearsay, unchecked, and totally lacking in sustaining fact. Such unethical procedure led me to write the brief editorials, then say no more about the matter.

THIS article is written because I am told various brethren are coming to my defense publicly, sometimes making statements in their analysis of grace, forgiveness, etc., which I would not make. These may be matters of semantics, and may or may not represent real differences in views. I fully respect their right to express themselves in whatever way they think best, and I greatly appreciate their recognition of the injustice done me, and others, and their efforts to give me support. But I have authorized no one to speak for me and I feel no responsibility to accept their statements as representing my beliefs. This declaration is so well understood by ethical journalists its repetition seems foolish. It would be completely unnecessary were it not that the F&F writers seem to accept unidentified rumors "from the Cincinnati area" as if they were statements from my mouth or pen. It is difficult to imagine anyone going to print with such blatant charges on that excuse.

If F&F, or anyone else, believes any of my statements are unscriptural (and I do not claim infallibility), it will please me to hear from them. I will carefully consider their criticism, and if I believe they are right I will take immediate steps to correct the error. PLAIN TALK offers two pages of an issue to any responsible writer who differs with us, and I will use only two pages in reply. I'm not averse to exchanges in other papers, but do not enter into such without assurance of fair treatment. When one has reasons to doubt the ethics and honor of a journalistic forum, it seems wise to shake the dust from one's feet, and send articles elsewhere. Straight talk, sound teaching, and the refutation of error can and must be done, without resorting to carnal weapons (2 Cor. 10:3-f). Until we learn this, we fight in vain.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XVIII No.XII Pg.3
February 1982
God Pleasers
Dan S. Shipley

If one statement could come close to summing up what the life of the Christian is all about, it would be something like the one Paul expresses when he writes, "Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God..." (2 Tim. 2:15). All of God's workmen need reminding of this admonition. It tells us to keep in view the object of our allegiance. Remember at all times and in all things, it is God we seek to please; not loved ones, not brethren, not the elders, and above all, not self.

Nothing says more about us than whose approval we seek — and nothing more influences our conduct. Nowhere is this more obvious than in youth. There, we call it "peer-pressure." At times it has proven more powerful and more persuasive than a lifetime of moral and spiritual training. For this reason we cannot begin too early or emphasize too much the great need for our children's seeking first God's kingdom and righteousness (Matt. 6:33) — and avoiding evil companionships (1 Cor. 15:33). And, most of all, they need to see in their parents a demonstration of what they recommend. After all, youth are not the only ones susceptible to the pressures of peer pleasing.

Accordingly, we find Jesus denouncing those who seek to justify themselves in the sight of men (Lk. 16:15). Some even engaged in acts of worship and benevolence that they might have the glory of men (Matt. 6:1-16). The reward they sought is all they got. As Jesus says, "They have received their reward." Not only are such rewards trivial, they are sought at the expense of God's approval and reward. Any expression of "religion" that is aimed at pleasing men is rendered worthless in its motive — as Ananias and Sapphira learned the hard way (Acts 5). Our giving will be no more acceptable than theirs when its aim is to impress or appease men. The same is true with our singing. As in giving, we must do our best and for the right reason. However, when our concern is more for harmony, pitch, pleasant sound and pleasing the visitors than singing with the spirit and understanding, we do not please God. Likewise, teaching efforts (whether oral or written) made with a view toward impressing more than helping are vanity. Remember then, the smallest or the greatest act of righteousness can be invalidated with a wrong motive. In all, it is God we must seek to honor, glorify and please.

However, if it is wrong to do right to please men, it is equally wrong not to do right in order to please them This is the temptation of Christians who court the favor of the world. It may be the husband or wife seeking to appease their non-Christian mate. As mentioned earlier, it may be the boy or girl seeking acceptance and popularity among peers. Or, it may be any Christian who covets social acceptance by worldly acquaintances. If we are not careful we will find our conduct and conversation being altered when associating with the ungodly. We may wish them to think us one thing and God to think us another. God knows the heart (Lk. 16:15) and its aim must ever be to please Him in all things (2 Cor. 5:9).

Is it yours?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XVIII No.XII Pg.4
February 1982
When I Became A Man
Robert F. Turner

When Paul became a man he put away childish things (1 Cor. 13:11). Childlike things are often commended: as guileless innocence, simplicity, etc. But the characteristics of a child may also illustrate incompleteness, and our need to grow up (Heb. 5:12-f). Worse, immaturity has a more ominous side: foolishness (Prov. 22:13), needing correction (29:15), and lack of wisdom and the ability to lead (Eccl. 10:16). Men and women of full chronological years often break up homes because the years have not brought maturity of perception and judgment. A large percentage of church problems are little more than fruits of immaturity, both spiritual and emotional.

Jesus likened Jews of his time to children playing in the market place: uncooperative, dissatisfied, and finding fault, no matter what was done. When some wanted to "play" merry, they didn't like that; and when the "play" turned to mourning, they would take no part in that either. Commentators have a field day with Matt. 11: 16-f., blaming the first, or last section of children; contrasting "play-like" with real joy or sorrow, etc. It seems the general and most obvious interpretation is best. Like immature children (in a bad sense), the self-centered, faultfinding people of Jesus' day rejected heaven's message, whether it came from a fasting John, or a feasting Jesus. The life styles of both John and Jesus were genuine —there is no suggestion made that Jesus "changed" to try and please them. The contrast in life styles only emphasizes the peevish nature of the hearers, who would be satisfied with nothing but their own party standards. Mature people accept responsibilities and act upon objective examination of evidence-- both in the physical and spiritual realm. The childish mind is ruled by whims or momentary fancies, wants its way regardless of consequences, and pouts when crossed. Like the children in Jesus' illustration, once crossed, they will not be pleased no matter what the outcome.

Maturity comes from the use of earlier learning and experience (Heb. 5: 11-f), coupled with a determination to "go on unto perfection," or "full growth." Mature people are not satisfied with a continual review of the foundation. They want to work on the superstructure, get on with the building. They appreciate and use traditional values to reach for the sky.

Paul told the Ephesians to "be no longer children" tossed to and fro "with every wind of doctrine" (4:14). Mature Christians are steadfast, do not shift here and there, either with the "brotherhood pulse" or being upset by every imagined "issue" that may arise. They are not easily deceived, for they are well grounded in solid principles of truth. They act upon conviction, not fads of the day.

And they are mature in understanding (1 Cor. 14:20). James says to pray for wisdom (1:5), with a faith that's steady. It is childish to be conceited, act like we "know it all," for true maturity makes us humble — we realize there is much we do not know. And the man who knows he does not know is a man in understanding, capable of being taught, and capable of teaching others.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XVIII No.XII Pg.5

February 1982

Use Your Bible

Dan S. Shipley

THE DEVIL'S DESIGNS (1 Pet. 5:8,9)

Intro.

1. This adversary has many "wiles" (Eph. 6:11) & "devices" (2 Cor. 2:11) with which to devour. We must recognize & resist his efforts:

I. TO DISCREDIT A. God 1. By suggesting Him a liar: "thou shalt NOT surely die" (Gen. 3:4) 2. By impugning His motives (Gen. 3:5) 3. God the Son called glutton & winebibber (Matt 11:19)

B. God's people 1. As Job (Job 2:5); John & co-workers by Diotrephes (3 Jn. 10) 2. As Paul (Acts 16:20; 17:7,18; Acts 18:13) 3. Elders, preachers & other saints often maligned, misrepresented...

C. God's word 1. "Foolishness" to some (1 Cor. 1:18); claim irrelevant, contradictory...

Ii. To Distract

A. By corrupting minds from singleness (2 Cor. 11:3) 1. With "thorns" or riches, cares, pleasures to choke out word (Lk. 8 2. With other "things that are upon the earth" (Col. 3:2; 1 Jn. 2:15)

B. By emphasizing "religion" to neglect of righteousness (pleasing God)

Iii. To Divide

A. As at Corinth (1 Cor. 1:10f) and with Diotrephes (3 Jn. 10) 1. Internal strife through pride, envy, jealousy, backbiting, etc.

B. Through false doctrine (Acts 20:30; 2 Tim. 4:3,4, etc.)

Iv. To Discourage

A. One of Satan's most effective tools 1. By personal weaknesses, sins of brethren, lack of results, etc. 2. "Let us not be weary in well-doing" (Gal. 6:9)

V. To Delay

A. Encourages "convenient-season" service; says "later" good enough 1. God says "NOW"; "redeem the time"...

VI. THE DIVINE PLAN OF RESISTANCE (God says "resist", Jas. 4:7) A. By being sober and watchful (1 Pet. 5:9)

B. Resist "in your faith" (whether subjective or objective)

C. By not giving place to him in anything (Eph. 4:27)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XVIII No.XII Pg.6

February 1982

Dlotrephes — A Nice Guy

Robert F. Turner

"I met Diotrephes the other day. Do you imagine him dark of visage, loud voiced, arrogant, and mean? Well you are wrong! He is handsome, middle aged, soft spoken, well educated. He knows a lot about most every subject and is especially interesting to talk to. In fact, he is a very nice guy. A lot of the problem is that people just don't understand him — and he has gotten a lot of bad press lately.

"Now I know he is opinionated. I frankly asked him about the church trouble — and I admit he did get a little upset. He is a man of deep conviction; he really believes what he believes. And he is worried about the church. He is afraid the church will really get messed up if he fails to keep a tight rein on things.

"Oh, about John, he and Diotrephes have a real personality clash. He has a thing about John — and maybe he is partly right. He says John is getting old and senile. Besides John is just a little uppity because he was a personal friend of Jesus — at least that is what Diotrephes says. And..." Does this imagined interview sound strangely current? Well, Diotrephes is not dead. I have met him — and I have heard this report from several interviewers who later became his devotees. Several observations might help our evaluations.

First, evil people are not without commendable traits. It would be nice if bad people were entirely bad —and thoroughly unlikable. It just is not that way. Recall lovable but rebellious Absalom (2 Sam. 13:23-)? And look again at Esau — a real man's man, but completely carnal minded (Gen. 25:27). Evil people have some good traits but are in rebellion to truth; good folk have some faults but are trying to overcome and do right.

The objective of the devil is to get us looking at the commendable, appreciating the friendliness, and admiring the knowledge and devotion. Then we may well ignore the rebellion and finally disregard the truth. We must not be ignorant of his devices (2 Cor. 2:11). How many people have selected a congregation based on its "friendly people" rather than its stand for truth.

Second observation. No excuse ever changes doing wrong. Noble motive (Robin Hood), extenuating circumstances, other people did not do as they should, -- the sin is still sin. Do not be deceived!

Third observation. Diotrephes did not learn about "rule" from the word of God. That rule is being a leader, an example of one who does right. He inspires the confidence and respect of believers and they follow. An army general must have trained Diotrephes. He only knows rule by coercion, mandate, force, and exclusion. No one questions the elders' right to decide but Diotrephes sees every suggestion as a challenge to his authority. Each criticism or disagreement is an insult to his position. Diotrephes will always be puzzled over Moses who was given charge of Israel but was the meekest of men (Num. 12:3).

Joe Fitch; 6326 Peacepipe; San Antonio, Tex.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XVIII No.XII Pg.7

February 1982

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Good sincere brethren differ on the use of the church building for weddings. Will you please comment? EH

Reply:

This was discussed at length in P.T., V. 11, N.3, P.4-5; also in V.8 N.7 P.7. The building is justified only as an expedient for assembling and carrying out God-assigned work of the local church. The command to assemble necessitates a place of assembly, and in the absence of specific instructions for obtaining that place, we assume with good reason the right to build, buy or rent a place of assembly. We cannot, with like good reason, use church resources to obtain a basketball gymnasium, for no such activity is authorized for the church. Nor can we use church resources to build and equip a banquet kitchen and hall, or a wedding chapel. This is not to say basketball, banquets, and wedding ceremonies are immoral or forbidden to the Christian; they simply are not authorized functions of the organized church. Funds pooled by members of a local church for the support of God assigned church work, would be misappropriated if put to such use.

But does this principle forbid the incidental use of a church-built place of assembly for something other than its intended purpose? It is practically impossible to avoid some such use. The place of assembly is not sacred, so as to be "desecrated" by common use. In some communities this is the only available place to shelter large gatherings for a funeral, wedding, or perhaps an emergency shelter following a disaster. I do not believe such uses change or violate the principle stated above, but since human judgment is involved, each church should independently determine these uses, with regard for the conscience of its members. More needs to be said on this incidental use of property, for wide divergences of opinion occurs here — but we must deal with yet another facet of the subject.

Beyond abuses, often excused as incidental uses, there are some who regard a "church wedding" almost in the R. Catholic sense of "sacrament," "administered" by the church. Marriage is ordained of God, as is civil government (Gen. 2:24, Rom. 13:), but this does not put the organized churches in the business of validating either marriage or civil government. It is well, though not essential, that the wedding ceremony or its preliminaries include a reference to and teaching upon the divine concept of marriage — and to some this is reason enough for the use of church property. But we must avoid relating marriage to the church in any direct sense and to some this is reason enough to deny the use of church property. On the "flip" side, there are those who regard marriage as "social" in the lightest sense, who would turn the ceremony into a party or festival. The use of church property for such as this seems most inappropriate, and unjustified as "incidental" use.

Do you see why I sometimes answer questions about "church weddings"..."Yes, No, and Maybe"? Circumstances, influence, perceived consequences, or the like greatly affect such matters. Pray for wisdom, and work for peace!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XVIII No.XII Pg.8

February 1982

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

For eighteen years we have called this page, "Stuff About Things." Previously, I wrote a column for our local bulletin under that heading. We have published a book by that name. And now someone has the gall to ask me where I got such an absurd title.

"Stuff" is not absurd! When Laban missed his stolen idols, he searched the "stuff" of Jacob. And when Jacob prepared to move to Egypt, Joseph told him to leave his "stuff" behind, for the goods of Egypt would be his (Gen. 31:37; 45:20). Moses even delivered laws concerning "money or stuff" (Ex. 22:7). Achan and the children of Israel put spoils of Jericho (including "devoted things") among their "stuff," to their sorrow (Josh. 7:11).

Bashful Saul hid among the "stuff" (baggage, A.S.; 1 Sam. 10:22), and in time of war, David made laws to reward those who stayed with the "stuff" (1 Sam. 25:13; 30:24). When Nehemiah returned from a trip to Babylon he found that Tobiah had moved into the "courts of the house of God" and was living there. He promptly threw his "stuff" out of the chamber (Neh. 13:8). "Stuff" is eminently "scriptural!" My Kentucky sources tell me about a preacher who announced his sermon title to be "Y.G.M.T.S." His text was Ezekiel 12:1-16, where God told the prophet to pack his "stuff" (for exile), dig a hole through the wall, and move out. (This was to signify the coming captivity of Israel.) The preacher drew a wagon on the chalk board, loaded it with whiskey, dice, and other gambling equipment, then preached his sermon: You Gotta Move That Stuff. Not exactly in context, but You Gotta admire his ingenuity.

A picky picky person could point out that "stuff" is used in the Bible with reference to baggage, household items, things; and that I use it with reference to ideas about things. True enough, but surely you would not want me to say, "Things About Things." And you must admit I hide my ideas among the "stuff," just like the Bible usage cited. Sometimes they are so well hidden I have trouble finding them myself, once the article gets cold. For example, if I didn't tell you, would you ever guess this article shows the absurdity of a concordance sermon, that makes 100% use of a Bible word, but presents little Bible teaching?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIX No.I Pg.1

March 1982

Believing In Others

Robert F. Turner

An early Greek school of philosophers taught that virtue is the only good, and that its essence lies in self-control and independence. But their "second" or "third" generation became violent critics of social customs and current philosophies; so the name "cynic" came to mean a snarler, one who believes human conduct is motivated wholly by self-interest. Cynical implies a sneering disbelief in sincerity, a distrust of others.

I am not unaware of society's immorality, nor of the need to be on one's guard lest one be "taken." Good business practice demands investigation, analysis, and the records that protect the innocent and widows. But there is something inherently wrong with an attitude of general distrust. When we can no longer believe in any one else, it may be we have too highly appraised ourselves. Extensive distrust suggests our own familiarity with the "temptation." (It takes a thief to catch a thief.)

Some may call it "gullible" "simple" or "naive," but we find much to admire in that person who believes in his neighbor, who lives in trust, who is optimistic about the future. Love "thinketh no evil, rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things" (1 Cor. 13:5-7).

Trust in others tends to gender an honest response — to bring out the best in them. Optimism opens doors forever closed to the pessimist. The cynic sours in his own juice, while the optimist improves qualitatively, even if there were no other credits. Of course I refer to genuine optimism, not a "policy" of "positive thinking" to be adopted for personal gains.

Self-esteem, confidence, and what some Kentuckians call "pride," spring from our belief we are "God's children," and "God don't make no trash!" While we believe others are O.K., we can believe in ourselves without harm. But watch out for the attitude that "others are Baalites, and I am left alone." Righteous judgment does not condemn until fruits demand it; and even then, encouragement may correct what snarling will only drive away.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIX No.I Pg.2

March 1982

The Next "Issue"

Robert F. Turner

"Brother Turner, what will be the next 'issue' facing the church?" When I first heard that, many years ago, I thought brethren who knew I traveled a lot were simply asking my opinion on church conditions. But the question persists and is so related to matching symptoms it may indicate a "syndrome — a group of concurrent symptoms characterizing a disease." A big "issue" facing the church may be our insistence upon having some "issue, facing the church.

No doubt the virus was present in the early apostate church, for as an institutional concept developed, emphasis switched from guarding "souls" (Heb. 13:17; Titus 1:9-11) to protecting the institution. Reformation sectarianism fostered a "protect our institution" concept; so that soundness and purity of the individual saint became secondary to "church" image.

Then Restoration principles produced a "movement" that could have issues and divide. The Missionary Society cracked "the church," and instrumental music divided "it." Recent institutional issues caused us to review earlier problems, and maybe we have come to expect "issues" that "divide the church. Preoccupation with the idea may actually promote it, and is not a "healthful" sign. The local church is an organized entity, and this "team" may divide — become two teams, serving the Lord; oh, segments of the original team may cease to serve the Lord, in which case His "church" did not divide — "they went out from us, but they were not of us" (1 Jn. 2:19). If we truly believe in independent congregations, this is the extent of church division. Numbers, keeping the building, or traditional consistency have nothing to do with God-recognized identity. His word is the determining factor.

Erroneous teaching and practice will always be present. There will be times when large numbers of brethren will err — certain "issues" will demand special attention. But calling every difference a "church issue" and lining up sides on that basis promotes a church-hood institutional concept and is a sure way to spread the disease. Families and social groups will pull together; name-calling and flag-waving will segregate people who know precious little about the real problem. Editors and preachers who thrive on little more than "issues" become lopsided. When our thinking is chiefly "reaction," we tend to neglect well-rounded Bible studies. The best defense against divisive issues is a brotherhood well taught on the Bible as a whole, and hard at work.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIX No.I Pg.3

March 1982

Neglected Issues

Dan S. Shipley

A preacher friend once told me of his intention to get his brethren all straightened out on the "issues" —just as soon as he could find all of them sober at the same time! What we call "doctrinal" issues still need dealing with, but so do moral issues! It is disturbing to hear of sound" churches with members involved in such things as fornication, homosexuality, social drinking, shady and dishonest business dealings, lying, profanity, neglected debts, and other like sins that ought not to be named among God's people (Eph. 5:3). Besides these should be mentioned the more "dignified" and "sophisticated" sins of bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, evil speaking and malice (Eph. 4:31); strife, enmities, jealousies, factions, divisions, parties, envyings, and such like (Gal. 5:20,21). Some have said they had just as soon fellowship doctrinal error as immorality. But, why condone either? Why not take a stand for all that is right and against all that is wrong? Can God's people afford to do less?

What Paul set forth in declaring the "whole counsel of God" (Acts 20: 27) still needs setting forth because, according to divine wisdom, it is exactly what men need to hear and apply. We do need to learn about the nature and work of the church — but not to the neglect of developing the Christian's character and integrity. If the cause of Truth is to be defended and advanced, it must be by such people as will apply it both objectively and subjectively to all circumstances and situations. But the first application of any truth must be to self. Otherwise, we repeat the Jew s mistake of practicing what we condemn (Rom. 2: 1-3).

For instance, can we expect to set forth God's counsel concerning the work of the church while ignoring His counsel that relates to longsuffering, kindness, and love? Can it be right to teach the plan of salvation with a hateful and bitter disposition--and without genuine love for lost souls? Is it consistent for me to teach a sinner that he needs to become a Christian while I am not willing to live like one? that he needs to have his sins forgiven while I practice sin — or fellowship others who do so? We who reprove Christians that forsake assembling with the saints, do we speak evil one of another? Which is not the counsel of God? Can we in good conscience teach love for enemies while not loving our own brethren; while not forgiving them and refusing to have wrongs made right? Something is drastically wrong when we who should be bearing one another's burdens wind up being one another's burden!

Nowhere is the kingdom character better pictured than in the sermon on the mount (Matt. 5,6,7). Someone has called this sermon the essence of Christianity and the beatitudes the essence of this great sermon. Study them! Poor in spirit; sin mourners; meek; hungering and thirsting after righteousness; merciful and pure in heart — these are fundamental to the Christian personality. We must not forget or neglect them! Rather, we must cultivate these and kindred qualities and allow them to flavor every facet of life!

[RETIREDFAN1]

.XIX No.I Pg.4
March 1982
God's Chosen People
Robert F. Turner

When Adam and Eve were cast out of Eden there were no "chosen people" save in the mind of God. For 2,500 years (Usher's inadequate chronology) God showed no special favor to any one nation. But God planned to bring His Son to earth to be born of woman, to die for man's redemption. Jesus must be of some family, some race; and God did not so honor an existing nation, but chose to build a special people, prepared both physically and spiritually, through which His Son would come to fulfill His purpose.

Abraham, a Chaldean, was chosen as father of this special people because of his faithfulness. He was called from his homeland, and he and his descendents lived a nomadic life, having little contact with other nations and forbidden to intermarry with them. Abraham's grandson, Jacob, was given the name "Israel" and his descendents were known as Israelites. Following Joseph into Egypt, they were made bondservants there, and welded together in hardship. Generations later God allowed Moses to lead them to freedom and gave them special spiritual and national laws — basis for a theocracy which God had planned. Joshua led the people into the "promised land" where they were first ruled by Judges, then as a full-fledged united kingdom under kings Saul, David and Solomon.

God's "land covenant" with these people was conditional (Josh. 23:14-f) and because they were unfaithful they were scattered (Jer. 18:5 — 19:10). Had it not been for God's promise to save a "remnant" they would have been utterly destroyed (Isa. 1:2-9; 10:20-21). But God had planned to send His Son as a descendent of David, son of Jesse (Isa. 11:1-16) and the "sure mercies of David" i.e., salvation from sin, would be available to Jew and Gentile through Him (Isa. 49:5-6; Acts 13:22-23, 32-39). (Note that Gentiles could have redemption at the same time, and by the same Savior as the "remnant" — Joel 2:28-32; Acts 2:16-41). Now read carefully, Gal. 3:16-29, for a summary of the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham. The literal Jews were "chosen" to bring Christ to the world, but all followers of His are "Abraham's seed" (figuratively) "and heirs according to the promise."

Genealogies of the literal children of Abraham are long lost. Jews, as a race, are no more "chosen" today than any other people. They forfeited that place through lack of faith; but by coming to Christ they have the same hope for heaven as any others. Paul wrote, "he is not a Jew which is one outwardly ... but he is a Jew which is one inwardly ... whose praise is not of men, but of God" (Rom. 2:28-29). Christians (Jews and Gentiles) are "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people" (1 Pet. 2:9). They are a spiritual "nation" over which Christ rules as King (Acts 2:29-36). This is the "kingdom" that was "at hand" during Christ's personal ministry (Matt: 16: 18-19, 28; Mk. 9:1; Acts 1:8). In the first century the Colossians had been translated into that kingdom (1:12-13) and the Philippians were told their citizenship was in heaven (3:20).

God's "chosen" (elect) are all who come to Christ for salvation (Eph. 1:).

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIX No.I Pg.5

March 1982

Use Your Bible

Dan S. Shipley

FAITH WITHOUT WORKS (Jas. 2:14-26)

I. IS WITHOUT PROFIT (v.14)

II. CANNOT SAVE (v.14)

III. IS DEAD (v.17,26)

IV. IS NEITHER FUNCTIONAL OR PROVABLE (v.18)

V. IS BARREN (v.20)

VI. IS INCOMPLETE, IMPERFECT (v.21,22)

VII. CANNOT JUSTIFY (v.24)

VIII. ONLY ABRAHAMIC FAITH EXPRESSES ITSELF IN WORKS OF OBEDIENCE (v.21-24)

A. Is profitable

B. Is able to save

C. Is living faith

D. Is functional, provable

E. Is fruitful

F. Is complete, perfect

G. Justifies

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIX No.I Pg.6

March 1982

Jacobs God

Robert F. Turner

Jacob knew God's name from childhood, but he did not "see" Jehovah as he is. Jacob's god — his view of God — must be changed before "the supplanter" (Jacob) will ever become a "ruler with God" (Israel).

Jacob's god was territorial. Jacob awakes from a dream in the desert and declares in surprise, "Surely the Lord is in this place; and I knew it not... this is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven" (Gen. 28:16-). He thought he left God at home, but Jehovah is not the "God of the hills" (1 King. 20:23). He is God of the Texas hills and the Colorado mountains, of the beaches of Florida and the frozen northland of Alaska, of America and China. What changes occur when men realize this! Men on a job assignment in a distant city will worship and serve just as they did at home. Soldiers on station in some remote country will study, pray, and live godly. Vacationers at an isolated resort will not forget decency and righteousness. All know they are yet in God's domain. Our God is Lord over the whole earth, and his eyes everywhere behold good and evil.

Jacob's god was carnal. He tried to bargain with God and to bribe him. "If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the Lord be my God "(Gen. 28:20) . What audacity! What ignorance! Man thinks to barter with God, but negotiating only works if you have something the other party needs. And God is not dependent on man; He rather supplies all man's needs (Act. 17:25). Moreover, God will not be satisfied with a kick-back, a tip, a tithe. He demands no less than all a man has and is (Rom. 12:1). And about terms, they are non-negotiable, and God sets all the conditions — "If you will... then shall ye be my people." No haggling! "Let me first bury my father." "Let me bid them farewell at home." "Come down from the cross and we will believe." "Show us a sign." But God's kingdom is not made of such horse-traders. Unconditional surrender and unquestioning obedience is the only offer God has for us. Righteous and gracious is Jehovah who rules us.

Jacob's god is weak. Thus, Jacob "helps" God by taking advantage of Esau in the pottage deal, by deceiving his blind father with a goatskin, and manipulating the cattle breeding (Gen. 25:29- 30:43). God needed no help — especially such dishonest tactics. "Is anything too hard for the Lord?" (Gen. 18:14). Abraham had offered to adopt an heir, and Sarah had offered her handmaid to produce an heir lest God's promise fail. God rejected the "help" and provided an heir as he had promised. God is "able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think" (Eph. 3:20). We cast aside worry and seek first God's kingdom and righteousness (Mt. 6:33) because we trust in his power to provide as he promised. In faith, we pray expecting to receive (Jas. 1:5,6; 5:16). Jehovah is strong to deliver and is faithful to keep his promises.

Is yours Jacob's god or Israel's God?

Joe Fitch 6326 Peacepipe; San Antonio, TX

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIX No.I Pg.7

March 1982

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Mr. Turner:

We visited your church recently and found your music program very unusual. Was the singing without accompaniment part of a special event, or is this your regular church practice?

Reply:

Your reaction is understandable, and is oft repeated by first-time visitors to an assembly of Christians engaged in worship. Please excuse the crisp nature of my reply, made necessary by lack of space.

1. We have no "music program" but consider all present as worshipers — participants who sing their praise to God. We try to discourage any ritual, or liturgical concept of worship; any "form" that one can "attend" and by which one can benefit vicariously. We consider each member of the church of Christ a "priest" (1 Pet. 2:5, 9) who offers a sacrifice of praise and service continually (Heb 13:15-16). In public worship one leads in prayers and songs, to promote unison; and in a secondary sense we "teach and admonish one another" (Col. 3:16); but our chief aim is to praise God.

2. This was not determined by "the church" in council or convention. We believe the New Testament is an inspired record of God's will to man, revealing by precept, approved example and necessary inference what He has done for us, and what He would have us be. We look to His word for information concerning worship, and try to conform to the pattern established there. Our conclusions are not infallible, and if you can help us to a better understanding of His will we will change accordingly, but our current practices in worship are not arbitrarily determined by "the church."

3. We do not claim to find some liturgical "order of worship" in the N. T., but in all passages relating music to worship on the part of first Century Christians, the worshipers sang, and did not play. Mechanical instruments of music were available in those days; they had been used in the Jewish worship; but the N.T. says the saints sang. Check the scriptures for yourself: Matt. 26:30; Mk. 14:26; Acts 16:25; Rom. 15:9; 1 Cor. 14:15; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Heb. 2:12; 13:15; Jas. 5:13. We think it significant that instrumental music was not used in the Catholic church until ca. 666; and as late as 1250 the Catholic theologian, Thomas Aquinas, said, "Our Church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries, to praise God withal, that she may not seem to Judaize" (McClintock & Strong).

4. We believe Christ redeemed His people — "church" being a collective noun applied to them — and gave directions for these people through His inspired messengers, the Apostles and Prophets whose writings make up the New Testament (Eph. 2:19-22; 3: 2-6; Jn. 15:26-27; 16:12-f; 2 Pet. 3:1-2). Our endeavor is to study the written word as carefully and prayerfully as possible, and practice those things found there. In our endeavor to be a church acceptable unto Jesus Christ we try to limit our organization, worship and work to that for which there is Bible authority; hence we sing and do not play. (See V.14, N.1, and P.4-5 for reply to pro-instrument argument.)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIX No.I Pg.8

March 1982

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

While in Australia, Phil Morr had the hair-curling experience of riding with a man who, late in life, had but recently completed a driver-training course. He had learned to start a car by methodical steps, followed explicitly: viz., place feet firmly on the floor, engage emergency brake, check gears, turn key, etc. At a traffic light the engine died, and he had to go through each "step" to restart it; only to kill it again upon release of the clutch. Horns honked, traffic piled up, as the procedure began anew.

Finally the car was started again, but by now the light had changed and heavy traffic was zipping across in front of them. The beginner had the car in gear, then, seeing the traffic he became confused and pressed hard upon both clutch and accelerator. The motor roared, the car shook, and the driver looked beseechingly to Phil for instructions. To his everlasting credit, and well being, Phil said calmly, "George, don't do anything until you have lifted your foot from the ACCELERATOR." (Emphasis, PHIL

What a world of wisdom those words convey when applied to critical problems in our own lives. The argument heats up, confusion reigns, the very foundations seem to shake — and what shall we do?? "George, don't do anything until you have lifted your foot from the ACCELERATOR!"

"For lack of wood the fire goeth out" (Prov. 26:20). That does not mean all troubles will cease if left alone for it continues, "And where there is no whisperer, contention ceaseth." It says we may fuel contentions by gossip and unwise comments. Unwittingly, we may stir to a white heat the very thing we would like to squelch. Some may become aware they are stirring a hornet's nest to no good end, but pride and "position" are committed, and they will go down with the ship (taking others with them) before letting up on the gas. How very sad!!

Somehow we have imagined a correlation between strength and loudness; between soundness and sharp retort. Of course soft-spoken talk of love does not make a thing right, and we freely admit it "gets on our nerve" when we know it covers error. But Christ-like treatment will not foster error, and it may avoid a fatal wreck.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIX No.II Pg.1

April 1982

Tempus Fugit

Robert F. Turner

One need not know Latin to know "time flies;" but awareness of its fleeting nature seems reserved for the older. So we were intrigued by a teaching method introduced into a young people's class in Arkansas. The instructor asked the students to say to themselves, "I am now 20 years older" — and then try to imagine where I will live, how I will look, what will be my circumstances.

After the first wave of foolishness wears away, and the class begins to think as realistically as possible, the teacher leads them to ask', "What kind of wife or husband I want," or, "Will I be capable of handling a good job?" Obviously the youngsters cannot be "matured" instantaneously, but with proper guidance they can get a glimpse of what lays ahead. And when attitudes seem right, the teacher begins to inquire about spiritual goals and relate high ideals, principles of Christ, to the good life here, and to the life hereafter. How do you want your children to behave, and how can you guide them to know what you know? Skillful use of this tactic can produce useful introspection — and seeing ourselves is a tremendous step toward self-improvement. Future time can be better realized by comparing it to past time. Looking back, 5 years seems very brief; yet the future 5 years have exactly the same number of hours: only then we will be ___ years old; and how better prepared to meet our Maker?

I remember telling a girl who was not particularly enthusiastic about finishing school: "Five years from now you could be a widow with two small children to support." It seems ridiculous to youth — but Oh how real it can become, and Oh so soon.

"Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall shine upon thee. Look therefore carefully how ye walk, not as unwise, but as wise; redeeming the time, because the days are evil" (Eph. 5:14-16). "Redeeming the time" is "buying up the opportunity" in footnote. We only have NOW for certain, and what we do NOW will determine our future. So very soon NOW will be our past opportunity.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIX No.II Pg.2

April 1982

Unstructured Worship

Robert F. Turner

UNSTRUCTURED worship is "in" again. Someone awakens to the need for something more "spiritual" and "truly worshipful" than the traditional three songs and a prayer; and sets out to unstructure the "service." If strongly into the "Spirit thing" (as one reformer put it) we may be told genuine worship must spring spontaneously from each individual's heart — so if any "hath a psalm," "hath a doctrine," let him speak forth. Paul missed a golden opportunity to encourage such (1 Cor. 14:26-40) when he actually commanded some order in the public worship — even among those who truly had miraculous spiritual gifts.

We frequently write on public worship (See V.10, N.3, p.4-5; 15-2-7; 16-11-4) and acknowledge the error of ritualistic, sacramental, liturgical "services" — which we may unwittingly approach by rigidly traditional patterns of song, prayer, preach, etc. Changing the order of our services may help avoid these errors: have the Lord's Supper before preaching, or after, if this is a change. We may have more songs, less songs, change the time of contribution, change even the emphasis of some services (make a genuine prayer service, for example); BUT — change for change's sake is gendered by the same wrong concept that makes ritual an error. AND — no amount of changing order can produce true spirituality or make the gathering more "worshipful." Frequently — and I do mean frequently — changes made without full preparation of the worshipers, and without their being well informed of the why and wherefore, will confuse, disorientate, and will destroy the worship once there.

We have no right to say members do not sincerely worship in their familiar three songs and a prayer; and it is rank folly to think that jolting them with a prayer and two songs will prostrate their hearts before God. A reformer may have adequate knowledge of God's word but abysmal ignorance of human nature, and the patient nurture and instructions necessary to lead people to new and better ways.

No doubt there are new and better ways of implementing public worship and work — expedients wholly within scriptural authority. We do tend to follow traditional patterns — which may be the best way, long tested. But such changes as we make must be with the consent of the worshipers, must be thoroughly understood so all can follow without confusion, must "be done decently and in order." Attempts to "organize an unorganized service-structure an unstructured worship" become mechanical devices, manipulating the people outside, but doing no good for the heart where it really counts.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIX No.II Pg.3

April 1982

Bitter Brethren

Dan S. Shipley

Recently a small struggling church in Texas divided because of a misunder- standing between brethren. More recently, a good church in East Texas suffered a similar fate. A young and growing church in California had nearly a third of its members to leave last year because of internal strife. Many other churches are threatened with the possibility of division. Some are, for all practical purposes, already divided but still meeting together — often times in an atmosphere scarcely conducive to worshipping the Lord. Regardless of what has caused the conflict, its consequences are always hurtful.

For instance, weak Christians are often disillusioned and discouraged to the point of giving up when they witness such controversy and the conduct usually associated with it. They are encouraged to take sides without really understanding why. Such conflicts are often characterized by hard feelings and bitterness between brethren. All still claim to love each other, but their claim is often contradicted by their words, attitudes and conduct. James says plainly, "Speak not one against another, brethren" (4:11). It's amazing how many reasons bitter brethren can find to justify doing what James says not to do! Even when we feel that we're in the right (and we always do!), could we justify our violating a dozen truths in order to uphold one? Spiritual truth always suffers when defended by carnal means. Conflicts have a way of impairing our vision. In B.C. days (before conflict) we saw no evil in these brethren; now we see no good. Back then, we never impugned their motives; now we find ourselves suspicious of their every activity. We see our good friends and brethren of past years transformed into some kind of enemy. It appears that Satan has blinded the minds of some believers too (2 Cor. 4:4; 11:3).

Brethren, may God help each of us to swallow our pride and to sincerely "follow after the things which make for peace" (Rom. 14:19). God's people are to be peacemakers, not peace breakers (Matt. 5:9). That means we must aggressively seek to make things right, regardless of who made things wrong. We must have such humility as to recognize the remote possibility that we (I) may have contributed something to the misunderstanding; perhaps I may have spoken harshly or manifested a poor attitude. There is the possibility that I have not been longsuffering, kind, and considerate as a Christian should be (1 Cor. 13). Is there a chance that I have not treated my brethren as I would like to be treated? (Matt. 7:12) Have I prayed for them? And, do I really want things to be made right between us? Am I willing to cease seeking some justification for being divided and work for unity? Am I willing to even take the wrong if need be? (1 Cor. 6:7) Can I forgive? Will I?

Finally, we must ask ourselves if we have such lowliness of mind so as to count others better than self; whether we are looking to our own things or to the things of others, and whether we are truly Christ-minded? (Phil. 2:2-5) God offers the remedy for these problems. Will YOU be a doer of His word?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIX No.II Pg.4

April 1982

Robertson On "The Law"

Robert F. Turner

Careful Bible students have long recognized a problem in the use of the article "the" before "law" in passages where the interpretation may vary, depending on the presence or absence of that article. (See quote in P.T., V.17, N.4, from A. Campbell.) Unfortunately, the translators seem to have been a bit arbitrary by inserting "the" in many places where no article exists in the Greek text. We give below some quotes from Grammar of the Greek N.T., by A.T. Robertson.

"The article is associated with gesture and aids in pointing out like an index finger ... Whenever the Greek article occurs, the object is certainly definite. When it is not used, the object may or may not be...

The translators of the King James version, under the influence of the Vulgate, handle the Greek article loosely and inaccurately. A goodly list of such sins is given in "The Revision of the N.T." (Lightfoot, Ellicott, Trench), such as 'a pinnacle' for to pterugion (Matt. 4:5). Here the whole point lies in the article, the wing of the Temple overlooking the abyss. So in Matt. 5:1 to oros was the mountain right at hand, not 'a mountain.' On the other hand, the King James translators missed the point of meta gunaikos (Jn. 4:27) when they said 'the woman." It was 'a woman,' any woman, not the particular woman in question." (Page 756.)

Regarding "law" (nomos) Robertson is a bit inconsistent. In his large Grammar he says, "Nomos is a word that is used with a deal of freedom by Paul. In general when nomos is anarthrous (without the article, rt) in Paul it refers to the Mosaic law, as in Rom. 2:17.... It is at least problematical whether nomos in 2:13... means the Mosaic law and so really definite, or law as law (the hearers of law, the doers of law)." (p.796)

But in Robertson's Word Studies, in Romans and Galatians, he recognizes the absence of the article as indicating law generally ("any law" he says); so he does not stick to his statement that Paul's anarthrous law refers to Moses' law. Actually, the context determines these matters in many cases — especially in Romans and Galatians. Note Romans 3:20-21, the K.J., with "the" inserted or removed according to Nestle's Greek text.

"Therefore by deeds of law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by law is knowledge of sin. But now righteous of God without law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets."

Justification (being pronounced 'free of guilt') is not on a law basis ("for all have sinned..."v.23) and law (any law) only makes sin the more apparent (v.19, 5:20, 7:13); but God's plan for righteousness is one of mercy, redemption through Christ's death on our behalf (v.24-25), so that we who are less than perfect may be forgiven-- pronounced free of guilt. And this plan was "witnessed by the law" (of Moses) and the prophets of old. There is no less "law" (necessity for obedience) in Christ than in Moses, but the "curse" of a law system which demanded perfection (Gal. 3:10 is replaced by mercy, as the law testified.