Plain Talk

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.VIII Pg.7

September 1965

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

I have heard some say that since judgement will be on an individual basis rather than in family or church "groups," that there are no scriptures addressed to the local church as such: further, that there are no instructions in the NT for organized activities of saints.

Reply:

(I have rewritten query to conserve space, state concisely. rft).

Who hath bewitched you? Surely it is clear that local churches are addressed in 1CO.1:2; GAL.1:2; PHI.1:1 etc (In PHI.1:1 "saints" are considered as making up an organized church, as shown by the additional and otherwise redundant expression: "with the bishops and deacons"). Of course this does not mean that all in these letters pertains to collective work. Instructions for "church" work is found in letters addressed to individuals (1TI.5:16) and vice-versa.

Judgement is on an individual basis, yes; but individuals will be judged as to their faithfulness in both independent and collective responsibilities.

An organized church is not something apart from saints, but is saints in a certain (collective) relationship with one-another.

Some have allowed "organization" to become a bogey-word. To say saints of a local church are "organized" is not to say that all features of all organizations are authorized; and it certainly doesn't say that groups of churches may organize. Webster, defining the word, quotes Coleridge as saying, "What is organization but the connection of parts in and for a whole, so that each part is, at once, end and means". When saints pool some means, and function as one under overseers, this is organized action. Does God authorize saints to act collectively? Yes! (MAT.18:17; PHI.4:15; 2CO.11:8 etc.). One function of the elders expedites the treatment of saints as a unit (ACT.11:30). Elders here either received on behalf of the church (over which they were bishops) or we must conclude that the elders were the only saints in need.

There are "rules" for collective activities; such as, which widows to be "taken into the number" (1TI.5:9) the collection (1CO.16:2) and sending of funds (1CO.16:3) conduct in the assembly (1CO.14:26-f) etc. Also, the scriptures recognize activities on the part of the collectivity by means of or through its "servants" (ACT.6:1-f.) regardless of an assembled status (ROM.16:1-2; PHI.2:25-f).

While it is true that some may neglect their responsibilities in team activities, erroneously thinking they may "ride" to glory on the works of others; this is no reason to deny the very real presence of collective, organized efforts in the scriptures. We need to teach the truth re. the local church, and urge brethren to function in their rightful capacities. We will not help matters by saying saints may "independently work collectively" as one very confused fellow put it. See "The Church Cannot Read" for discussion of another facet of this particular subject.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.VIII Pg.8

September 1965

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

An Alcoholic, for the moment brutally honest, once asked me, "How can I 'give myself to the Lord'? I do not have myself to give!"

Laying aside the problem of when, or if, an alcoholic really does completely loose control of himself and become purely a "sick" man, this question focuses attention upon the moral responsibility of each one of us to take and keep control of ourselves - while this is still possible.

How, indeed, can you "give yourself to the Lord" if you do not fully possess yourself?

Paul wrote, "All things (within the realm of 'right'-rft) are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." (1 Cor.6: 12) I will not be brought under the power of any! What a declaration of self-control, of indomitable will. Even though it is right within itself, I will not allow temporal things (meats for the belly, vs.13) to destroy my hopes for eternity. I will not allow personal, sensual appetites to cause me to desecrate my body, mind, or my soul -- for I belong to the Lord.(v2O)

The alcoholic has allowed to become a slave I to drink. There is no point in arguing with him that this is a bad thing, and can only bring more unhappiness. He knows all that better than you. But finding the way out -- aye, there's the question! And there are many others bound by less devastating habits (?) which are nonetheless slaves -- and equally unable to "give themselves" to God. I know dozens of men who are bound to a little roll of paper and tobacco. (I will not mention the women, for it hurts me to think of them in this way) Some have told me that they want to "quit" -- and I believe them. They say they realize their influence as parents, teachers, members of the church, etc., is hurt. They would like to "give themselves" -- but they do not have themselves to give. They belong, in part, to a filthy harmful habit.

"I will not be brought under the power of any."

Would you be free -- truly in possession of self?? (And what mockery is "freedom" without self-possession?) Then shun the first steps that close the slave's chain about you; or being now chained, resolve to regain yourself while there is yet time.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.IX Pg.1

October 1965

The "Sectarian Spirit"

Robert F. Turner

I have read several lengthy articles recently, on the meaning of "sect" "heresy," etc. Each one gave the definitions of the words (a cinch -- ever since the invention of the dictionary) and then demonstrated the sectarian spirit by the application each made of the terms to all and sundry who differed with the writer.

Nor do I mean that pointing out error is necessarily the sectarian spirit. There is nothing "sectarian" about calling a false teacher a false teacher; it is what you use to determine that he is false that really tells the story.

If he is considered "false" simply because he differs from you and yours -- look out! Even if he left an old, well-established party -- and in the "eyes" of the dictionary is an heretic -- -perhaps there is still one big question to be answered. Who established your party -- by what authority do you use it as the norm?

Among God's people a constant seeking after truth is not heresy, but the very basis by which we became and continue to be God's people. Self-will must be replaced by submission to the will of God. But the sectarian spirit accepts what one has learned thus far as final and complete truth; and closes the mind to all further consideration of God's word relative to issues which may arise. The party, "Our church," becomes the standard instead of the Divine Word which fathered the true church in the beginning. Creedalism says, "I have reached the top -- -what I now hold to be true must never be questioned. Henceforth, all problems and questions must be solved by an appeal to my current level of understanding". This is that "measuring ourselves by ourselves" which Paul condemns (2CO.10:12).

In the Jewish eye, Christianity was a "sect" -- a "splinter group" holding to peculiar doctrines (ACT.24:5; 28:22). But God knew better!

Current practices -- even 50 yr. traditions -- do not make a "sect" of those who reject them. They may stir a "sectarian spirit" in those who hold them regardless of consequences.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.IX Pg.2

October 1965

Pointless Preaching

Robert F. Turner

A recent report from a preacher in Africa tells of an opportunity to use TV to "teach the Bible" "though she (the teacher, rft) may not mention the Church of Christ..." She will "No doubt" be announced and known by many as a "member of the Church of Christ."

Laying aside the woman-preacher aspect of the case, for the time, we question the wisdom and scriptural right to engage in pointless teaching. (Howls of protest hereby acknowledged)

Alex. Campbell tried to teach the Bible (in Bethany College) without teaching any "distinctive doctrine." He claimed to teach only those facts "admitted by every denomination." We seriously doubt that he limited himself to this rule -- even in the College -- and we further question the possibility of any one to teach the full truth of any substantial portion of the New Testament without teaching things that differ from denominational theology.

Yes, there are moral principles in God's Word that may be taught (to the temporal benefit of mankind, we may add) without carrying the application to the preparation of the soul for eternity. Campbell's alleged distinction was made because he did not believe soul-saving doctrines, faith, etc., came within the legitimate area of collegiate (secular) education. (See "Lectures & Addresses" by Campbell, pages 302-305, 486.) But is the evangelist sent to Africa for this??? The African report says the teacher (TV) will be allowed to teach Bible "principles, which is what we are here to do." And I thought they were there to preach the gospel of Christ, and urge people to obey to the saving of their souls.

Can one be a Christian and not be a member of the body of Christ? Can one teach duty and privileges of Christianity and not teach concerning the church of Christ? (Gal. 3: 26- 27 Eph. 1:22-23 1 Cor. 12:12-13)

Or do I detect in the capital "C" in "Church" that the reporter is considering the "Church of Christ" somewhat as a denomination, distinct from the body of Christ? It is alright to teach the truth -- just don't mention "our" church? Am I getting picky? Perhaps -- but "in your heart you know I am --" well, hitting close to home.

This was not written to "pick" at the African preacher. It was written in an effort to make you think -- and take stock of your own attitude toward God's Word, and our purpose here in this brief span of life.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.IX Pg.3

October 1965

Just Two Ways To Go!

Robert F. Turner

Oversimplification (what a word to start a simple article!!) may be as damaging to clarity as lengthy complicated details. As we set forth the following we are aware that many subdivisions of our subject are untouched. However, we hope to impress your minds with the most simple and basic of all choices in life -- the choice between good and evil, right and wrong. There are just two ways to go!

The Infant under normal circumstances, has but two ways to go. He will grow to maturity, become accountable, know good from evil, and be held responsible before God; or he will die, and go to heaven.

Infants do not "inherit sin" - they are not born totally depraved. God considers little ones innocent, "that this day have no knowledge of good or evil" (DEU.1:39). "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father -- the soul that sinneth, it shall die" (EZE.18:19-f). Paul says that death (spiritual) passed upon all men, "for that all have sinned" (ROM.5:12). The safety of the little child is attested by Christ when He said, "of such is the kingdom of heaven" (MAT.19:14).

The Unbelieving Sinner has but two ways to go. He will placack"s trust in Christ, become a follower of the "Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world;" or he will die, and go to Hell.

He won't be lost because I said so; nor because God wills it (2PE.3:9). He will simply reap the wages of his own sins (ROM.6:23. GAL.6:7). Christ did not come to condemn the world. We impose condemnation upon ourselves by our sins. But Christ came to save (JOH.3:17,5:24). An acceptance of the Christ means obedience to His will (JOH.14:23; MAT.7:21-f; MAR.16:16). We prove our lack of faith when we contend that "faith only" is enough. Consider JAM.2:24; 2TH.1:6-10. The Faithful In Christ has not lost his free-agency or power of choice. He still has just two ways to go. He will turn his back upon Christ, become lukewarm, depart from God; or he will die, and go to heaven.

Those purchased by the blood of Christ may "deny the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction" (2PE.2:1). Paul warns Christians to "take heed lest ye fall" (1CO.10:12). Christ will "spew out" the luke warm Christian (REV.3:15-16). Clearly, the Christian must choose to continue in Christ -- he is not forced to take this course. We are assured, however, that Christ will never forsake us (ROM.8:35-f). If we labor for Him, heaven will be our home (HEB.4:11). "Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord" (REV.14:13).

The Unfaithful Christian also has two ways to go. He will recognize his wayward plight and turn about; or he will die, and go to Hell.

One who has known the way of truth should realize more than any other that his path is hopeless (2PE.2:20-22). The brittle thread of life is all that stands between him and Hell. Repent or perish; two ways to go!!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.IX Pg.4

October 1965

Use Your Bible . . . . . .

Robert F. Turner

THE GOODNESS AND THE SEVERITY OF GOD "Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in His goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off." Romans 11:22 

 

THE SEVERITY OF JESUS.... 

1. Recognizes no "middle ground." Matt.12:30 Rev.3:15-16 

2. Places obedience before family ties. Matt.12:46-f. Matt.10:34-f 

3. Quick to praise, rebuke Peter. Matt.16:16-19, 21-23. 

4. Rebukes disciples for pride, wrong spirit. Matt.20:20- Lu.9:54- 

5. "Ye are of your father the devil." Jn.8:39-47 

6. Unfruitful branches will be burned. Jn.15:1-6 Matt.25:41-46 

SACRIFICIAL LOVE AND FORGIVENESS..... 

1. Freely gave His life for us. Jn.3:16 Rom.5:6-9 1 Jn.4:9-11 

2. Not "eye for eye" but pray for enemy. Matt.5:38-48 

3. Forgiveness, to know no bounds. Lu.17:1-5 Matt.18:15-f. 

4. Prayed for those who crucified Him. Lu.23:33-34 

The seeming contradiction of character is no more than that of the loving parent who is severe with the child, to promote its welfare. We are condemned by our own sins-- not because God wills it so. (2 Pet.3:9) The Saviour does everthing consistent with our free-agency to turn us from our sinful course, and bring us humbly and submissively to salvation. 

 

Matt.23:13-36 "Woe" to Jerusalem; then weeps. Vs.37-39. 

Note the "love and warning" in Paul's letter to Galatians. Gal.4:16 "AM I THEREFORE BECOME YOUR ENEMY, BECAUSE I TELL YOU THE TRUTH?"

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.IX Pg.5

October 1965

When Is A Church "In Need"?

Robert F. Turner

Brethren who respect the authority of God's word realize that one church may send assistance to another church only when the receiving church is "in need". Even today's "brotherhood promoters" recognize this truth, and try to justify intercongregational funds on the grounds that the sponsoring church "needs" to preach the gospel to the world, etc.

In this sense, do not all churches "need" to preach to the world?. Should not each church spread the gospel according to its ability, and thus maintain congregational independence?

But since we freely acknowledge Bible authority to help a church "in need," we must have some means by which "need" is determined. What do we mean by "need"?

When is an individual "in need"?. Do we determine this on the basis of grandiose projects he proposes to do? Suppose I have enough to feed, clothe, house, and care for my family; and I make a contribution to the work of the Lord according to my ability. But I propose to enlarge my contribution to $5,000 per week. Does my proposal make me an object of charity??. Would you send me funds to attain this unrealistic goal, thinking you were giving me "alms" -- filling my "need"?

You might offer to share my expenses in a mental hospital; but you would surely tell me to make contributions according to my ability, and let others, including yourself, do likewise. You would only consider me "in need", an object of "alms", when I lacked (wanted) the necessities of life. "In want" (a state, or condition) is just this -- to lack those things necessary for self-maintenance. The obligations (in a very real sense, the "assigned work") of both the individual and the local church may be divided into two classes: that which is necessary for self-maintenance (including peculiar responsibilities, as that of a man for his family, or a church's obligation to provide the essentials for worship, self-edification, and material assistance to her own members) and world obligations (the man's obligations to his community, etc.; and the church's obligations to preach to the world or assist needy churches).

The individual is not "in need" (a subject of "alms") because he would like to contribute to some good work. He should make such contributions according to his ability -- and will be judged accordingly. Likewise, a local church is not "in need" because of a desire to meet some world obligation. A church is "in need" only when it lacks the means of self-maintenance. It thus becomes dependent (with reference to support) and may receive alms from other churches.

Those who use 2CO.8: and like passages as authority for intercongregational funds, pooled under the oversight of a "sponsoring" church, and used to meet world obligations, grossly pervert the scriptures. It is by such perversions that "brotherhood" projects, with denominational organizational structures, are being fostered upon brethren; and we are castigated as "anti-cooperation". Now think!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.IX Pg.6

October 1965

History Previews The Present

Robert F. Turner

Our history lesson for this month comes from "History of the Disciples" by A. S. Hayden. This is how a Baptist church treated those who would think for themselves -- but such sectarianism is found in others as well.

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

"March 2, 1833. It was then motioned and seconded that, as Bro. E. A. Mills will not consent to abandon the reading of Mr. Campbell's 'Millennial Harbinger,' which we think is leading him from the gospel and the faith of the regular Baptists, we withdraw from him the hand of fellowship. The vote was then tried and carried by a considerable majority.

Pending the motion for the exclusion of Mills, he made a most manly appeal, and an able defense of Mr. Campbell and his work. It was printed and circulated, but it could not avert the premeditated blow. This act of exclusion was a heavy stroke to many of the members. A remonstrance was prepared and sent in to the church, signed by eighteen names. It was mild and respectful; yet, strange to say, it was the death-knell of every one of them. They were all, without exception, and without any other offense, excluded from the church.

This declaration of exclusion was signed by nine names, and was silently acquiesced in as the action of the church without approval or demur. Thus nine members excluded eighteen, the number who had signed the remonstrance; the rest of the church, eighty members, taking no active part in the proceedings.

These rejected members, cast down but not forsaken, could not let the light within them become darkness. Hearing of a church in Mentor, meeting just as the disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, they sent an invitation for a man to visit them. Bro. M.S. Clapp came, preached, and organized a church of seven members ******" Thus originated the church of Christ in Eagleville, **** " (Pages 352-f.) ---------------------

Now, let's review this situation:

(1) One man had an open mind, and desired to read what Alex. Campbell had to say on various religious subjects.

(2) A hot-headed "pastor" and his followers determined to purge the church of such "unorthodoxy." (pp. 350-f)

(3) Pleas for prayerful consideration and Bible study were ignored.

(4) Following the unjustified disfellowship of Mr. Mills, eighteen members expressed (in a "mild and respectful" way) their disapproval of this action.

(5) NOTE -- Nine members proceeded to disfellowship these people also; while eighty (80) members kept quiet.

(How can 9 members "run a church"? It's easy -- when 80 members have too little interest -- or character -- to do anything about it!)

(6) Of the 19 disfellowshiped only seven

(7) were there to be counted when a loyal church was formed. BUT TO THOSE SEVEN ALL TRUE FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST ARE FOREVER GRATEFUL.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.IX Pg.7

October 1965

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Dear Bro. Turner:

What is the scriptural procedure for the appointment of additional elders? Is this wholly the responsibility of the existing elders?

Reply:

We have neither command nor example of this matter in the N.T., hence must appeal to scriptural principles that are involved for a solution.

One may desire, and presumably prepare himself for, the work of a bishop (elder); and may be scripturally appointed only if he meets the qualifications set forth in God's word. (1 Tim.3: 1-f. Titus 1:5-f.) This shows that arbitrary selection on the part of existing elders is not right; nor is this an "office" to which "successors" may be named by the "authority of the incumbent."

It is reasonable to suppose that existing scriptural elders would know those members who are best qualified to be considered: and all else being equal, those with whom they could best function as a team. These factors were present in the Jerusalem church, however, when the Apostles called the multitude of the disciples together and asked them to "look out among you" seven men to care for the Grecian widows. (Acts. 6:1-6)

Elders are "shepherds" of the local "flock," having the "oversight." (1 Pet.5: 1-3) In order for the sheep to move and function as a flock, submission on the part of the sheep is essential. (Heb.13: 17) The very nature of collective action necessitates some common direction and/or guidance; and the scriptures justify the conclusion that elders sometimes act on behalf of the saints. (Acts 11:30) Since there is no authority for arbitrary rule ("lords over God's heritage" 1 Pet.5: 3 Matt.20: 25-f) I conclude that there is a realm of "rule" delegated to the elders by the congregation, by virtue of selection or appointment. (This realm, of necessity, is in matters of judgement only; for neither one nor many have the right to usurp Christ's power to legislate in matters of faith. Jas.4: 12) All these things point to the selection of proposed elders by some open, above-board process by which all members who are to be "ruled" may express themselves. Do these men meet the qualifications demanded by the Holy Spirit? Are they men to whom we would trust such matters of judgement as may be proper for them to make on our behalf? Are they of such temperament as to work well with our existing elders? When these questions can be answered in the affirmative there need be no hesitancy in appointing such men as elders of the church. 

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

Mimeographed Tract Received....

From some anonymous sender, saying "STANDING REWARD OF TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS for anyone who could show in the Bible that JESUS CHRIST ever 'repealed' the law of HEALING----" etc.

We're a little "short" right now, and we haven't seen the other fellows money either, but we'll put up a good clean ten dollar bill for the man who can prove Jesus Christ ever HAD a "law of healing" in the first place.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.IX Pg.8

October 1965

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

THE DAY EVERYTHING WENT WRONG!

It was Monday morning. I arose from bed feeling as sick as I had said I felt yesterday -- to excuse my absence from worship. At the breakfast table my wife growled at me -- the way I usually growl at her -- and I was stunned into silence. She read the paper while I gulped a cup of coffee; then she stormed off to do shopping without even saying good-bye.

On the way into town another car ran a red-light -- the same one I ran as I came home Saturday -- and crumpled my left front fender. The driver's liability insurance had expired -- by some strange coincidence, on the same day I had dropped mine.

When I finally go to work, the office force had already taken the easy jobs, and I was saddled with the tough-decision tasks. During the day an internal revenue man called on my boss, and then informed me that I must actually pay all the "expenses" I had dreamed up for my income tax report. To top it all, my boss cut my salary to conform to the gross income I had claimed.

Through the day, people did me as I had done to them--- talked about me, short-changed me, and tried to beat me to every parking place. That evening the preacher called, and assured me that the Lord would bless me in keeping with my liberality -- which meant a cold year ahead. When I prayed for forgiveness, God said He would treat me like I treated those who trespassed against me.

How much worse can things get???

I'm Catching Up With Me!!!

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

We know a preacher who knows the truth relative to congregational independence, the social gospel, etc., but refuses to preach on these subjects lest he be "lined up with that bunch of antis." Well, that's a terrible thing, no doubt; but seems it couldn't be much worse than "lining up" with error, and becoming a traitor to God and moral obligations.

If preaching truth aligns me with some "bunch" either that "bunch" is doing the same thing, and I am happy for the association; or I have been falsely aligned -- and I can't afford to forsake truth on that account.

Second Class Postage Paid

at Burnet, Texas

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.X Pg.1

November 1965

The Story "Going Around"

Robert F. Turner

The class had studied the names of the Apostles, books of the NT, etc., and now, in an oral quiz, I asked if Mark was one of the Apostles.

"Yes!" answered one young man; and he spoke with firm conviction.

I tried to reason with him; asked him to recall a little song by which the Apostle's names were listed; but he would not budge. Yes, he was certain, Mark was one of the Apostles.

Finally I had the class turn to MAT.10:2-4 and read aloud. Mark's name was conspicuous by its absence.

My young student was unmoved. "It reads that way," he admitted, "but that's not the story that's going around"

It's pretty hard to argue with that. "The story that's going around" has always been a hard nut to crack. It is what "they say" "everyone does it" or "I've always heard". Some are ready to accept "the story that's going around" just because it is "going around". They ride the band-wagon! Others fail to understand the true source of authority in religious matters. Without realizing it, they join with the Roman Catholics in accepting the authority of "the church" instead of God's word, which approves or disapproves "the church". If "the story going around" is what "the church" teaches they think that is final.

Weak people grab "the story -- " for many reasons. It offers ready-made conclusions, complete with stock arguments and quibbles. They do not have to study, think, and decide for themselves. If "the story" has popular approval they can lose themselves in the crowd -- feast on the strength (?) of others. No courage is required.

Under the guise of "independent thinking" some egotist may foster a foolish notion -- this is true. Being different from "the story that's going around" doesn't make a thing good. But at the risk of encouraging some crack-pot "free-thinker" we must insist upon the need for more people who will think for themselves. The Lord's church suffers greatly from "the stories that are going around".

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.X Pg.2

November 1965

Effects Of Name-Calling

Robert F. Turner

I have been asked, "Doesn't it bother you when your brethren call you 'Anti'?".

Not particularly! Most of those who do this are simply following the lead of some prejudiced preacher, and have little or no understanding of what it is all about. Would you become angry at little children who, without knowing what they were saying, called you some name they had heard grown-ups repeat? Neither can I feel hard toward these sheep without a shepherd, who blindly follow blind leaders.

Instead, it gives me a deep sense of pity. It causes me to wonder how I can respond, or what I can do to open the eyes of their understanding. How can I correct their sectarian concept of the church, and free them from the creedal bonds that would allow them to use name-calling to justify their unscriptural practices.

The situation is not unlike that of years past, when all members of the church were called "Campbellites" by "those who were either ignorant or embittered by prejudices" -- as one old preacher put it. An almost exact parallel is found in the late part of the 19th. century, when those who objected to the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship were called "antis" or "non-progressives" by the liberals of that day. I do not expect to be more favored than those stalwarts of yesterday who fought for the purity of the Lord's church. Soldiers of the Cross give battle by using the sword of the Spirit. The Bible is opened, and right or wrong is determined by an appeal to this standard. If anyone wishes to question our practice or teaching we are ready to meet them openly, orally or with the pen.

But sectarian "wheelers" and spiritual cowards do their fighting with carnal methods. They seek to prejudice others against us by name-calling. They "maneuver" to cancel meetings, fire preachers, appoint elders, etc., to further their ends. They snipe with their bulletins, where we can not reply (Plain Talk "equal-space" discussion-offer remains open). True Christians are "bothered" by such only because it reminds them of lost souls, in need of the love of God and an understanding of His will.

Out beyond our little circle of local problems and petty differences there is a big world of lost souls. Our task is clear. Stand for truth regardless of circumstances, and work for Christ till the night comes.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.X Pg.3

November 1965

Defining The "New Birth"

Robert F. Turner

Can you understand how making followers of Christ (Christians) is like planting seed in the ground; and the seed which reach "good ground" ("in honest and good heart") produce fruit unto God? (LUK.8:4-15). If so, you can understand those processes of the New Birth (being "born again") which pertain to your duties and privileges.

Both the production of the grain crop and genuine children of God are figurative ways of describing the making of Christians. One likens the process to agriculture, and the other to animal or human reproduction; and neither involve (in so far as our responsibilities are concerned) any mysterious visions or "still small voices".

First, there must be a planter, or a father -- one who begets. God is the originator of the "seed" which produces Christians. "Of His own will begat he us -- " (JAM.1:18). And the "seed" is "the word of truth" "the word of God" (LUK.8:11). In a secondary sense the one who teaches truth is called the "planter" or "father". Paul reminded the Corinthians, "I planted" and "yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel" (1CO.4:14-15).

Second, the "seed" is, as we have seen, the "word of God". Peter says we are "born again -- -by the word of God, -- (1PE.1:23). The popular conception of the new birth would have people "born again" who have little or no knowledge of God's word. This is like expecting a crop, or a child, without a seed. Quibbles on "born of the Spirit" do not alter this basic truth. God's truth has been revealed by the Holy Spirit (2PE.1:21; EPH.3:2-5) and to reject God's truth is to "resist the Holy Spirit" (ACT.7:51). God's word is the instrument of the Spirit, its modus operandi (EPH.6:17). Third, there must be the reception of the seed into a clime or condition suitable for reproduction. There must be "good soil" or "an honest and good heart" (LUK.8:15). James says, "Lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls" (JAM.1:21). The seed can not grow in rocks and thorns, nor in an impenitent heart.

And, fourth, grow it must if it is to produce fruit. James says, "But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves" Jesus said, "having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience" (LUK.8:15). Since the Lord commands baptism, as well as faith and repentance, (MAR.16:16; ACT.2:38) these become a part of the fruiting process, with baptism bringing us into Christ (GAL.3:26-27). Baptism is not the whole of the process, but it certainly can not be left out of the "new birth" defined in scriptures.

Finally, the "heart" receives the seed, and character proceeds from the heart (PRO.4:23). The "new creature" is not changed physically. Even his weaknesses remain -- but a change of motive and desire controls them. The fruits of God's word are good, and to the extent we allow His truth to move us "old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new". The "new birth" produces a child of God.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.X Pg.4

November 1965

Use Your Bible . . . . . .

Robert F. Turner

SAVED, NOW AND AFTER-A-WHILE

1. A Baptist debater once charged: "You can't preach a 'now' salvation." He believed "once saved, always saved." 2. Young lady questioned a public prayer containing the expression, "-- and save us after-a-while." She asked, "Why not now?" 3. Failure to recognize that salvation may be used in two ways: a. FROM past sins, now; b. Ultimate salvation IN heaven. 

NOW LATER Acts 2:47 'were being saved" (ASV) Rom.8:24 "saved by hope" -- not seen. 1 Cor.1:18 "us who are saved" 1 Cor.3:15 "he-- shall be saved," 2 Cor.2:15 "them that are saved" 1 Tim.4:16 "thou shalt - save thyself" 2 Tim.1:9 "who hath saved us" Jas.5:20 "save a (brother's) soul" No conflict in these passages. Some refer to salvation from sins, brought into covenant relationship with God: while others refer to final redemption in heaven, at the conclusion of a faithful life of service. 

Old Testament Illustrations Ex. 14:13 "Stand still, and see the salvation of Jehovah---today." a. Refers to salvation FROM Egyptian, in the crossing of red sea. b. Some forty years later, they were "saved" in Canaan Land. * Many who crossed sea, did not enter Canaan. 1 Cor.10:1-12 May be "saved" from past sins, yet miss heaven. 2 Pet.2:1 Some "bought" (by Christ's blood) deny their Lord. Bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 Pet.2:20-22 Heb.3:6 We are Christ's house "if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end." Heb.3:12 "Take heed, brethren,------------departing from God" Some say "Believer is sealed against loss by God's "SHALL NOT." (Jn.5:24) But unbeliever also sealed against salvation by same words. (Jn.3:36) BOTH----CAN CHANGE THEIR OWN STATUS

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.X Pg.5

November 1965

How Does The Church Change?

Robert F. Turner

The Lord's church consists of two basic elements -- people, and truth. In the absence of people the church can have only a potential existence. God's plan, the proposed characteristics, are inherent in the seed, the word of God; but these truths await application in the lives of people. They were given originally with people in mind -- humble, submissive, obedient people -- God's people.

Now God's people are such by their own choice -- i.e., although God desires theire allegiance, and has done everything necessary to make their salvation possible, each individual must will to come to God. Further, no one is forced to remain faithful. The people of God choose to continue in His paths. They may, and some do deny the Lord that bought them (2 Pet.2: 1) and depart from the faith. (1 Tim. 4:I)

God the Father, and our Lord and King Jesus Christ change not -- their truth lives and abides forever -- so the Divine element of the church is fixed and constant. But the human element of the church is not so stable. The people may be "off again, on again, gone again," Here is reason, if indeed reason is needed, for Paul's warning that we must not measure the church by the rule of human action. (2 Cor.10: 12)

The above principles are true -- almost to the point of being axiomatic in the thinking of Bible scholars. Yet, it is the ignoring of these very principles that makes sectarianism -- and its fruit, partyism -- so common. We come to know the people who are, let us assume, walking in truth. We identify the church -- equate the church -- with these people, their place of assembly, their practices. Somehow the fact that they are the Lord's church only if they walk according to His truth gets pushed into the background. The people change. The changes are made over a long period of time, perhaps beginning with concepts and practices wrong in principle but not easily discernible. The power of tradition asserts itself, and we justify (?) further wrongs on the basis of things done in the past. Since these people are regarded as the church, we soon regard their practices as those of the church of Christ; and all who differ are heretics. It is this party spirit that causes many to think that those who differ have "left the Lord" or "left the church."

The remedy is obvious -- to all who look for it. We must constantly check our principles and practices against the unchanging standard, the word of God. Of course such checking demands objective, prejudice-free study. We must compare our practices with those things authorized in God's truth. And this remedy, (the medicine) may be bitter -- in fact, it will be bitter to those steeped in the party, spirit. We question their sacred cows and dampen their pride.

Here we discover who love the Lord's church, and who love a human party that has been called the Lord's church; who are converted to the human element, and who are converted to the Divine element of the church. The answer is embarrassing at times.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.X Pg.6

November 1965

"Anti" Church In Austin

Robert F. Turner

The following is taken from "History of the Churches of Christ in Texas," by Stephen Eckstein, Jr. (p.130-)

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

"In Austin, the church of Christ, begun in 1847, grew slowly for several decades. After the Civil War, the congregation met in a log house on Congress Avenue between Fourth and Fifth Streets. A frame building was constructed in 1867 at Eighth and Calhoun but was replaced in 1872 by a two-story house with a basement for a Sunday School."

"In 1885, a visitor found only twentynine in Sunday School and thirteen in the morning worship service. Apparently trying to invigorate the apathetic congregation, W. A. Morris and Hardin Welsh, two of the three elders, invited the state meeting of disciples to convene in Austin.

The following year, the delegates, who met in the church building, formed the Texas Christian Missionary Society. According to one account, sixteen members, who opposed the missionary society and the use of the organ in the worship, soon withdrew and formed another congregation. Shortly thereafter, the group wrote a letter of reconciliation to the elders which evidently was rejected.

In 1887, evangelist J. D. Tant was invited by the group which withdrew, now numbering eighty-seven members under the leadership of McGary and J. W. Jackson, to conduct a meeting. The next year the following advertisement appeared in the Firm Foundation: "The Church of Christ in Austin, will meet every Lord's Day at 1014 E. 7th, at their own hired house and all Christians opposed to innovations in the work and worship of the Lord's plan are cordially invited to meet with us when possible." This body formed the nucleus for the University Ave. Church of Christ in the twentieth century. The old church became the Central Christian Church."

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

Review:

(1) A majority of the elders favored the "church cooperation" movements of the day.

(2) As the fruit of this error became apparent, sixteen members withdrew and formed another congregation. (Please note -- they were "antis," rebelling against the elders, leaving the church -- at least that is the way sectarian-thinking members then and now would classify them.)

(3) Their efforts to discuss and correct differences were rejected by those who "stayed in the church."

(4) They frankly and openly advertised their opposition to innovation, and invited all who felt the same to worship with them.

Surely any open-minded person can see current church problems reflected in this history of the Austin church. Today's sectarian-thinking members, blinded by prejudices, probably have not read this far anyhow.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.X Pg.7

November 1965

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Dear bro. Turner:

Please discuss the meaning of the "moral" law.

Reply:

The term "moral" is evidently undergoing some changes -- at least in the minds of brethren -- so much so that without adequate definition many discussions are ambiguous. The term is not used in the Bible (in any version I have seen) although there are passages which seem to refer to that which is "right" by its nature.

Webster defines "moral" as "springing from, or pertaining to, man's natural sense or reasoned judgement of what is right or proper". Thus morals exist among people who have had no access to revelation, but their standards of morality will vary according to the people who develop them. These standards, enforced individually by the conscience, and upon the society by regulations self-imposed, make "moral law," apart from revelation.

But when we consider the laws of God (i.e., God's revealed will) we must carry our definition of "morals" much further. Divine regulations have to do with man's conduct in society as well as in his relation to God. It is inevitable that God's regulations will overlap, and perhaps even duplicate laws of such a nature as man has or would make for himself -- without revelation (Ex.: murder, theft, etc). Thus some revealed (Bible) laws may be classified as "moral" in nature, and yet occupy a different position from that of morals of society. When God gives a "moral" regulation the source of that law is such as to put it above human judgement. Changes in the customs and practices of men can not affect God's laws. They remain as given unless or until He sees fit to alter or remove them. Division of God's laws into "moral" and "positive" (while serving some good in study) is a man-made distinction, and must not be used as a rule for judging any of God's laws (JAM.4:11-12).

Space forbids a study of ROM.1:ff. here, but please note that the basic sin of the Gentiles ("without law") was their refusal to recognize and respond to the information God made known to them in creation -- ("things that are made") namely: (1) God's eternal power; and (2) His Godhead, or Divinity -- Deityship. Because they "glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful" (ROM.1:21). He "gave them up" to immoralities (1:24,26,28).

Apparently God expected these Gentiles to (1) recognize the existence of a Creator; (2) accept this Creator as something more than man -- worthy of worship and service -- and (3) within the imposing boundaries of such a conception, to live discreet, moral ("by nature" "conscience" ROM.2:14-f.) lives, until the time came to further reveal unto them His will.

We are in deep water here (let us hope we do not confuse "muddy" water with depth) and it is wise to move with caution. I fear that some have jumped boldly into discussions of the "moral law" without making adequate preparations. Personally, I feel my inadequacy on this great subject.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.X Pg.8

November 1965

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Have you heard that old joke ---- ?? Never mind, I'm going to tell it an), how. One fellow was telling his buddy: "I just can't bear to see my wife work so hard. That's why I spend so much time fishing."

Or, a little closer; an elder in a business meeting remarked, "These records of our low contributions are disgraceful." So, they quit keeping records. Helping the good wife, or raising the contribution were out of the question, of course.

It seems this sort of thinking has grown in popularity. I know of one church that for years had carried a scriptural exhortation on their weekly bulletin, "Come, Let Us Reason Together!" Then their practices were questioned. They refused to allow an open discussion of the problems, and when the "motto" was called to their attention, they removed it from the bulletin front.

On another count, I called attention to some evidences of change and liberalism in a congregation, as seen in statements of their bulletin; so -- they removed my name from their mailing list. In both cases, I must admit the bulletin changes were more easily made than the changes in attitude and practice which the cases demanded. If they only had some way to keep the Lord from checking their activities they might get by with the farce. An early format for the Herald of Truth admitted that this was the work of the contributing churches. When it became impossible to defend this with scripture, they changed the format to credit one church, Highland of Abilene, but continued with the same plan of operation as before. Gospel Press has made two or three different "policy" statements, but has shown no evidence of changes in practice relative to serving as a media for the collective action of churches.

Who is fooled by such double-talk? Some blinded brethren perhaps; but what brethren think -- -including this editor-- is of temporary consequence at best. The important thing is what God thinks of our side-stepping ways.

We "behold ourselves in a glass" and go our way, and straightway forget what manner of man we are. (Read Jas. 1:22-25) Jumping the curb, we drive through the fence, far afield, and hit a tree. Then we say, "Ain't that just like a tree!"

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.XI Pg.1

December 1965

The Need For Honesty

Robert F. Turner

Honest: derived from "honor" Characterized by integrity or fairness and straight-forwardness in conduct, thought, speech, etc. Upright; just; equitable; trustworthy; truthful; sincere; free from fraud; -- the dictionary preaches sermon enough to embarrass most of us.

A "policy" of honesty is shallow -- it does not satisfy the demands of this noble characteristic. Our words, thoughts, and actions must spring from something more than "policy" -- they must express our very nature -- an inner conviction that rebels at deceit. "A man is as good as his word" might be better expressed. "His word is as good, and no better, that the man". Honesty must be found in the man -- and the word is but an expression of something that first exists.

So basic and fundamental is this characteristic to Christianity that we tend to assume its presence among all who profess to follow Christ. But analysis may show that a majority of the "failures" of so-called Christianity spring from a lack of this virtue. Brethren deceive brethren, and that is enough to cause good men to weep. But what is worse -- for it gets nearer to the center of all deception -- brethren are not honest with themselves. Until we are honest with ourselves, we will not likely be honest with God or our fellow-man. An honest man can not believe in the sufficiency of God's plan -- for salvation, the church, its work, etc., -- and then support another plan. He can not believe that we must "prove all things" by God's word -- and then refuse to measure his practices by that rule.

An honest man does not devise quibbles to escape the force of scripture. He does not shun information on any subject because he fears his previous conclusions may be affected. "My mind is settled; don't confuse me with the facts!"

It takes "an honest and good heart" to receive God's word in the first place; and "honest behavior" in the last place -- to be a Christian (LUK.8:15; 1PE.2:12). And no amount of deception will fool God! (GAL.6:7).

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.XI Pg.3

December 1965

Salvation By Grace

Robert F. Turner

For the grace of God is motive for faithful service. Show yourself to be a pattern of good works, sound in doctrine, conduct and speech; exhorting others to do likewise. This is the context for the beginning of our passage for study (see TIT.2:11-f.).

That bringeth salvation -- as only grace can. None earn salvation, for all sin and are unworthy. But "salvation by grace" and "obedience unnecessary" are poles apart, as we shall see from our text.

Hath appeared to all men -- showing the universality of God's grace. If grace is all that is needed, then all will be saved. Of course this verse only shows that God's goodness is extended to all men -- made available to all. Some will profit, by accepting God's terms; while others will be lost, regardless of opportunity, because they refuse God's terms.

Teaching us -- yes, God's grace teaches! It was by grace that the revelation of God's will was made known to Paul (EPH.3:1-f.). As we learn His will we "grow in grace and knowledge" (2PE.3:18). Mankind is hopelessly lost in the desert of sin, and the way of life which God provides, and makes known to us, is a manifestation of His grace -- no matter how much obedience He requires of us.

Denying ungodliness, worldly lust -- is a portion of the negative teaching. The old ways must be rooted out; our selfish attachments for this world must be replaced by better goals. God does not "take away" our appetite for sin; but by His grace he teaches us to deny them (see. MAT.16:24). Live soberly, righteously, godly -- the positive teaching of God's grace. Neither the positive nor the negative aspects of this passage are all-inclusive. These but summarize the teaching of grace. They clearly show, however, that God expects action.

In this present world -- we have opportunity to heed His grace. "Now is the day of salvation" (2CO.6:2) means it is now or never. There is no "second chance" after death; there is no other dispensation of grace. You shall be judged according to "things done in the body" (2CO.5:9-10).

Looking for -- our saviour, our "blessed hope" whose appearing signals the end of our sojourn here and our reception into the heavenly home. Hope (made possible by God's grace) is an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast (HEB.6:19). It sustains us in time of trial.

Who gave himself for us -- the only price by which man could be justified in God's sight. Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me! He redeemed us from iniquity. And to what end??

Purify unto himself a people -- yes, a peculiar people, a special kind of people, a people especially shaped and molded to be God's own possession (see 1PE.2:9 ARV). A people with this "peculiar" characteristic --.

Zealous of good works. Grace teaches that, and God has every right to expect it. Thus we are saved by grace!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.XI Pg.4

December 1965

Use Your Bible

Robert F. Turner

In keeping with our promise to present some articles on Bible study, we come to the fourth in this series. (Previous articles in Vol.2, No.3, 5,

Since WORDS are the means by which thought is conveyed, all serious study must consider the meaning of the terms used by NT writers. Two extreme positions may be taken: (1) The K.J. wording is identical with current "home town" usage; or (2) it is subject to mystical or highly technical interpretation beyond the reach of the "ordinary" reader. Neither of these positions is true.

It is true, however, that care must be given to certain terms which may retain an earlier or a "classical" meaning, even in modern versions.

The word "awful" means "full of awe;" just as "careful" means "full of care." Thus, "Be careful for nothing" (Phil. 4:6) is not a negation of safety-first rules, but exhorts us to be free of anxiety.

Many Bible readers know that "conversation" (K.J.) refers to much more than speech. "Let your conversation be without covetousness --" (Heb.13:5) is translated "Let your way of life be free from the love of money;" in the New A.S., while the A.S. of 1901 says, "Be ye free ---" with "Let your turn of mind be free" in footnote. "Conversation" in vs. 7, K.J. refers to "conduct" "issue" or "outcome of their way of life." And in Phil.3:20 the K.J. "conversation" refers to "citizenship" or "commonwealth." "Conversation" then, must be watched, in life and Bible study.

The word "perfect" is commonly thought to signify "flawless," but a check with any good dictionary will show that its basic meaning is "complete" "whole" or "finished." The K.J. translates "perfection" of Heb. 6:1 from the same basic word translated "full age" in Heb. 5:14. "As many as be perfect" (Phil.3:15) refers to maturity, a "full grown" Christian.

Then there are words which have a basic, ordinary meaning; but which may also have a special use. "Elder" simply means "older," but it is used in a special sense to mean "bishop" or "overseer." (Acts 14:23 Titus 1:5) "Angel" means "messenger" -- and may refer to an ordinaryor a heavenly messenger, as shown by context. There are the 12 "Apostles," and then other "sent forth" persons are called "apostles." (Heb.3:1 Acts 14:14)

We do not question the use of such terms in the various translations. We simply wish to emphasize the need for greater attention to WORDS -- with a liberal use of the dictionary and the various word-study books available. One who reads much of any good literature (and the Bible is the best) already knows the point we seek to make. Unfortunately, there are many who limit their reading to the "funny" books-- and who likely will not read this article OR the Bible; -- and if they did, would have a hard time understanding either. (No, I do not mean to classify my article as being of the same caliber as the Bible.)

EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY OF NEW TESTAMENT WORDS, by W. E. Vine, is recommended as a fine word-study book.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.XI Pg.5

December 1965

If You Owned The Church

Robert F. Turner

(In this article we take some figurative license with terms. rft)

IF YOU OWNED THE CHURCH, would you be satisfied with the way your business is being conducted by your employees?? (Compare Matt.21:33-46)

The principle purpose of your institution is set aside in favor of purposes which better suit the sales force. "We have difficulty 'selling' this 'save souls in heaven' stuff," they say; "but 'social fellowship sells like hot-cakes and coffee."

You set up a "company-maintenance" fund: sick-leave and emergency relief benefits for employees, with a special 'widow indeed' clause. (Acts 4: 34-f. 1 Tim. 5:16) Your employees not only draw from this fund for themselves, but they use this fund and much of your regular operating capital for a general welfare program. When community or world conditions place individual obligations upon them, they "meet the need" by use of company funds. Their free hand, with your money, does attract more traffic -- for the hot-cakes and coffee - but it greatly reduces the time and inclination of your sales force to push your "soul saving" program. (They say, "just look at the 'business'!!")

You are paying your employees high salaries, at a very great cost to yourself, but they "take off" whenever they feel like going hunting, fishing, or 'just visiting the folks'. Their idea of "working for the company" is to attend one of the tri-weekly sales-force meetings - and many only come then to get their check. The regular seven-days-per-week work schedule to which they agreed, and on which basis you promised their pay, has been ignored for so long many scarcely know this is expected. They are surprised, and just a little bit hurt, if you mention it. Your plans for expansion via the "leaven" process, with independent and self-sufficient stores operating under local overseers, gets lip-service only. A few ambitious employees have decided that nation-wide interstore planning and operation is "more productive" -- at least, of the kind of results the employees want -- so they have made "independent" about as realistic as a "Home Cooking" sign on a chain restaurant in a big city.

Remember that time you sent portions of the abundance of some stores to supply a store in need? (2 Cor. 8: 1-14-f) Your employees now use that to justify inter-store funds and projects directed by a "sponsor" store.

The "manual of policy and operation" which you wrote, gathers dust -- seldom read and rarely studied. On their own the employees organized a training school which has developed its own brand of policy and operation. Company funds are solicited and used to support this school. Of course you didn't authorize this, but your employees think it is a "good thing."

And a few have taken your "every man a sales force" slogan to mean you didn't want a store in the first place.

Lord, be merciful in judgement!!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.XI Pg.6

December 1965

Nothing New Under Sun

Robert F. Turner

We have repeatedly stated that the current church problems are but "digressive" issues of the past, in modern dress. Brethren who refuse to consider the scriptural principles involved, and swallow the anti-"anti" propaganda of the sponsoring churches, are following the same line taken by the "digressives" of years past.

Consider the following article. Does it have a familiar ring"?

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

"For twenty years or more I have labored under the delusion that the 'anti', as they were derisively dubbed, were a split off the church of Christ; that they were anti-Sunday school (therefore did not believe in teaching or the study of the Bible), anti-society, anti-missionary, anti-everything except ante-up -- they just wouldn't give."

I have learned that the so-called 'anti' wing is not a split off the church of Christ, but that a number "digressed" from the church -- leaving the loyal brethren. I know too, that the 'digressives,' in their eagerness to make good, have not only 'padded' reports -- of money raised, of converts made and work done -- but have misrepresented the loyal brethren and minimized their work."

"I was made to believe that the loyal brethren were opposed to preaching the gospel to the heathen, opposed to all missionary work; that all the missionary work was done by the societies, that the loyal preachers were ignorant, behind the times, and opposed to progress and advancement.

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

Taken from the GOSPEL ADVOCATE of August 26, 1915; written by Otto Delton Maple, a former "Christian Church" man who had been blinded to the plea of loyal brethren by prejudicial and false charges, and name-calling. ------------------

From The "Unchangeable"

"The ship of Zion has floundered more than once on the sandbar of institutionalism. The tendency to organize is a characteristic of the age. On the theory that the end justifies the means, brethren have not scrupled to form organizations in the church to do the work the church itself was designed to do. All such organization usurp the work of the church, and are unnecessary and sinful."(ACC Lectures, 1939)

"When brethren form organizations independently of the church to do the work of the church, however worthy their aim and right their designs, they are engaged in that which is sinful." (P. 338, see citation below.)

"There is no place for charitable organizations in the work of the New Testament church. It is the only charitable organization that the Lord authorizes or that is needed to do the work the Lord expects his people today to do." (P. 340, see below.)

"When men become dissatisfied with God's arrangement and set up one of their own, they have already crossed the threshold to apostasy." (P. 341.) (By Guy N. Woods, ACC Lectures, and GA Annual Lesson Commentary, 1946)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.XI Pg.7

December 1965

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Is it scriptural for elders to delegate their authority (in optional matters) to others without reserving their final approval?

Is it scriptural for a member to challenge a decision made by the elders (in optional matters) and to actively seek to change it?

Reply:

God recognizes the need for overseers in a local church, hence their place and their work is divinely appointed. They are authorized to function, but this does not mean that their word is a divine mandate. Legislative authority remains in Christ. These "optional matters" would become matters of faith if -- as some seem to think -- to question the elder's judgement is to sin against God.

Elders are authorized to "shepherd" the flock -- to "guide, tend, guard," the course of Christians in this life to enhance their hope for salvation (HEB.13:17). It is to this end that we are "subject" unto them.

An "overseer" and "shepherd" must "make decisions" -- it is absurd to deny this, and at the same time hold to the scriptural designations for these men. "In which direction shall we lead the flock today, that they may graze profitably?" "How may we direct their energies for greatest gain?" Concerted action is clearly implied in "shepherd the flock"; not-withstanding the individual responsibility of each sheep (Note; each is responsible to "be subject" to the shepherds, within the realm of oversight which God has given them.). Now, may elders "side-step" their responsibilities? This is the question -- avoiding the ambiguity of "authority" and attendant problems too involved for discussion here. The answer is, no! Elders have responsibilities inherent with "oversight" and "shepherding" which they must meet.

"Challenging" a decision is perhaps a prejudicial choice of words. I believe one may question the elder's judgement, and if so, should go to the elders and "actively seek to change" their decision. In fact, one is less that honest with himself if he ceases to think for himself; and one is unfair to the elders and the progress of the Lord's work if he fails to speak up on any matter vital to the work of the church. Further, I believe elders who can not receive respectful criticism and will not weigh all evidences so that objective decisions may be reached are unqualified for this position (Sober, just, not selfwilled, not soon angry -- TIT.1:7-8.).

But "actively seek to change" may imply divisive tactics which would be wrong in themselves -- such as political "maneuvers" in influence, lobby against, or otherwise disregard and show a lack of respect for the function of shepherds. We must not "war after the flesh" -- use "carnal weapons" -- even to obtain worthy goals.

No God-loving sheep will allow his dissenting judgment (and we are discussing matters of human judgement) to invalidate the rightful place of shepherds; and God-loving shepherds are justified by care shown the sheep.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.XI Pg.8

December 1965

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

This may shock your sensitive soul but TRY to control your emotions long enough to check the scriptures and any good encyclopedia. Please???

A holiday season is upon us; one which I could more fully enjoy without the constant drone to "put Christ" in it. Christ has been "put" in what was originally a purely pagan festival, without His will or consent. There is no NT authorization for the "holy day" accent which apostasy has given this season of good-will, homecoming, and gift-giving. The "Christian significance" is wholly the invention of man.

And, characteristically, man has placed emphasis upon the wrong end of the life of Christ. The birth of Jesus, miraculous and wonderful, was but the beginning of His purpose on earth. "Baby Jesus" is not our Saviour. Prior to the crucifixion Jesus was not yet glorified; (Jn.7:39 12: 23-f. 17:1-f.) His purpose was not yet accomplished.

It is understandably human that men who wish to honor Christ would celebrate His birth (although no reputable scholar contends that Dec.25, really IS His birth date). But the facts are that Christ authorized the celebration of His death. (Matt.26:26 -f. Rom.6:3-4 1 Cor.11:23-f.) Men see death as the end of one's work, but Christ saw death as the very center of His work, the means by which sin-stricken humanity could be saved. Men who urge the "Christ Mass" season make the usual bungle men make when they try to improve on God's plans. Joyous and oftimes revelous celebrants are little impressed by the SAVIOUR Christ. But the humiliating sacrificial death of Christ leaves a different mark on those who truly "remember" it. One does not celebrate such a death (by baptism and the Lord's Supper) except he have faith in that which followed -- the VICTORY of life, for the Lord and for all who follow Him.

And what propriety is there in saying we love the Lord -- while we ignore the celebration He requested, and observe one of our own invention?

So, we'll visit the grandchildren, send greetings to far-away friends, and be thankful for a cheery oasis in a busy year; but we'll let the Lord put "Christian Significance" where He knows it truly belongs.