BB Dec 03

Waldron Mission Fund

Under the oversight of the elders of the Crossville church of Christ, PO Box 211, Crossville, TN 38557

Vol.6 December 2003 No. 12

BULLETIN BRIEFS

NOT FAR BEHIND THE DENOMINATIONS

Walter Pigg

Fifty years ago it was a very rare thing indeed for a congregation of the Lord's people, or a Gospel preacher, to have anything to do with the denominational religions around us. There was one exception with regard to preachers, and that was the many debates which took place. The denominational people were challenged to uphold their faith and practice by the Bible in public debate.

How things have change since fifty years ago! The number of instances where brethren, including preachers, are fellowshipping the man-made religions is increasing rapidly. Not only are brethren fellow-shipping these religions, they are in some instances helping them to grow. Just one example of that very thing was when several congregations in Nashville supported the Billy Graham Crusade a short time ago.

Debates seldom occur anymore. Not many of the religious folk will debate what they believe and practice, and a number of our well-known brethren would not debate because of their affinity for the denominational people. There are an increasing number of areas where they would not find anything to differ with them.

It appears that a number of our brethren are Not Going To Stay Behind The Denominations in an ever-increasing number of areas. A prime example of keeping up with the denominations is the activities of the University congregation here in Murray (KY).

On the religious page of the Jan. 17, 2003 issue of Murray Ledger & Times (KY) there is about a quarter page write-up about the Christmas program of the University congregation. Under the heading: Special Held at University Church are two, three by four inch pictures of the activities. One shows a group of children participating in the program. The other picture is that of the youth group and high school students engaged in Group Singing. Santa Claus is on the right. The following excerpts are from the one column on the right of the pictures:

"University Church of Christ held its first holiday program on Dec. 21. Members of the Church Youth Group participated •with the high school students enacting their version of "Twos the Night Before Christmas " and grades 1 to 6 singing various carols. Matt Hale, program organizer, said "while Churches of Christ in this area have typically not held Christmas programs WE FELT that the teachings of Christ could best be shared with our neighbors, friends and family by expressing the joy we have as Christians through an event like this."

From the above account and the comments by Matt Hale it appears that the University congregation has a goal of Not Being Behind the denominations with reference to the Christmas holiday. Could this be what the elders of the University congregation are feeding their flock? Apparently so, since the Christmas celebration was followed by falling in line with another activity of denominations. For the University congregation in the Spring displayed an electric sign with revolving words, in the front of their building, facing Highway 641. The sign carried the message to Celebrate Christ at the University Church of Christ, Easter Sunday 4/20. "All our friends and neighbors" were invited to "Friendly Day!" Easter is not a New Testament holiday.

So, with Easter as well as Christmas, the University congregation is keeping up with the denominations. What will come next? Who knows? Probably only they know. But there is one thing 1 do know, and this is, I'll not be surprised, in view of the above activities. Why stop with two holidays?

One would think that the University elders along with Matt Hale would know that God's word does not authorize the observing of Easter and Christmas as religious holidays. We note that Matt Hale is quoted as saying, "...we feel that the teachings of Christ could best be shared with our neighbors...." It is when people base religious activities on what they "feel" to be best, rather than on what God's word teaches that all manner of things may occur.

I have used the University congregation here in Murray (KY) as an example because it is right here at home. But the same type of thing is happening all across our country. As sad as this is, it should not come as a surprise, since there are so many warnings in the New Testament of brethren departing from the faith. We are seeing that now.

1131 Hickory Grove RtL, Almo, KY 42020-9332

BOOKS FOR THE COST OF POSTAGE

Divorce Debate: Olan Hicks VS Jim E. Waldron. In the tirst of two propositions Hicks affirmed "Unscripturally divorced and remarried people may continue in the remarriage without further sin." Waldron denied. Pre-Millennial Debate: Peter Pickering of Hobart, Tasmania, Australia and Jim E. Waldron on the 1000 Year Reign.

Is There A Universal Code of Ethics? Fourteen writers answer questions about ethics and morals around the world, e.g., morals and culture, abortion, bribery, euthanasia, situation ethics, war, capital punishment, beverage alcohol, marriage and divorce, etc. Ideal for adult and/or teen studies - 21 chapters with questions. Edited by Jim Waldron

»1 Book for $2.00 - 5 or more Books $1.00 each Order From: WALDRON MISSION FUND c/o Randall Standefer P.O. Box 123, Dunlap, TN 37327 Phone: 423-949-2685

LEFT WING § RIGHT WING

Jim E. Waldron

Most are well acquainted with the above terms in the political arena. They came from the seating arrangement in the British parliament and referred to those opposing the crown as being of the left and those favoring the monarchy as being on the right. The terms in the western hemisphere refer to the left (generally) as being those in favor of more government control, spending and influence, while the right (generally) is opposed to more government influence and power in the lives of the people.

In the spiritual realm the terms right and left were applied by God to the care of His word centuries before the British ever developed their system of government. For the Lord said to Joshua, "Only be strong and very courageous, that you may observe to do according to all the law which Moses my servant commanded you, do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may prosper wherever you go" (Joshua 1:7). This is good advice for us today (See Romans 15:4) as we seek to ascertain the right manner in which to walk in the way of the Lord. It is clearly made applicable to New Testament doctrine by the Lord's admonition not to add or subtract from His word (Rev. 22:18-19; cf., Gal. 1:6-9; I Pet. 4:1 la).

The prophet Isaiah spoke of the coming way of the Messiah in this manner: "A highway shall be there and a road, and it shall be called the highway of holiness. The unclean shall not pass over it, but it shall be for others. Whoever walks the road, although a fool, shall not go astray" (Isaiah 35:8).

This "highway of holiness" is the roadway found in Christ, for He said "/ am the way..." (John 14:6). To be on that road means to walk in Christ by doing the Father's will as He did (Matt. 7:21; John 6:38). In simple words it means obeying His word for He said, "if you love me keep my commandments'' (John 14:15). Again, "this is the love of God that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome" (I John 5:3).

As we seek to do the will of the Father in our generation we must recognize that there are those who have a right or left approach to the scriptures. Brother J. D. Tant, over a hundred years ago recognized this when he warned brethren about leaving the highway of Christ. In his succinct manner he said, you do not have to be in either ditch just stay on the road. There are brethren who are on the left or right that seek to pull us into the ditch on their side. Those on the left want to loose where God has not loosed. They boast of their liberal or progressive manner of meeting "peoples' felt needs" and proposing change "for we live in a changing world." Those on the right bind where God has not bound and boast that we are "the conservatives."

The self-styled change agents are an example of those in the left ditch, for across north America they have declared that the churches of Christ constitute a denomination and that they (the change agents and their fellow travelers) must restructure the local congregations to make them more like Protestant Community Churches. They want the worship to be "contemporary." They want to exchange the plan of salvation (hearing, believing and being baptized - Acts 18:8) for the Baptist "sinner's prayer." It ought to be obvious that the use of the name "Church of Christ" over a door requires that the body of people meeting inside must live up to Christ's standard (2 Tim. 1:13) or be hypocritical, but if the name "Community Church" is over the door they are obligated only to live up to community standards.

Yet, it is not just those on the left who trouble the church in our time but there are the forbidding brethren on the right. Such have been around for generations. They, as noted, make it a matter of doctrine to bind where God has not bound or to forbid what God has not forbidden. In the latter part of the 19th century they were forbidding churches to have divided Bible classes. This they did in spite of the fact that Paul not only taught the brethren in public meetings but conducted house to house studies (Acts 20:20).

Paul plainly says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man, but to be in silence" (I Tim. 2:12). Going beyond this, forbidding brethren said a woman cannot even teach children, so men were teaching toddlers in Bible classes. Paul was located in Ephesus for three years (Acts 20:31), but forbidding brethren cried out against located preachers.

Forbidding brethren were around even in Jesus' time. For when little children were brought to Him that he might bless them, the disciples rebuked those who brought them, "but Jesus said, let the little children come to me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14). Today we have those who forbid the church, the bride of Christ, to receive little children. Their cry is that God authorizes the church to do benevolence for "saints only," and little orphans are not saints. They insist that helping homeless waifs is individual responsibility only. This they do in spite of the fact that Paul commended the church at Corinth "For (their) liberal distribution unto them (saints - II Cor. 9:1) and to all men " (II Cor. 9:13; Compare I Thess. 3:12). The doctrine of "saints only" was generated in the same place as "faith only," that is, in the hearts of men (cf. James 2:24).

Again, we have brethren that forbid Christians to eat in the meeting house. They misuse I Cor. 11:34, saying that God forbids us to eat in the church house. That text says, "let hin eat at home." Does that mean that God forbids us to eat in restaurants or only in the meeting house? If the church meets in a home as many churches did in the first century (Rom. 16:5; Col. 4:15) and many do today in third world countries, does that mean a congregation cannot have a fellowship meal in that house? The apostle Paul ordered that faithful evangelists train "faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). If the church where you are wakes up and realizes that such men must be trained, will you teach them in the meeting house but tell them they must go to their homes to eat lunch? The truth of the matter is that our buildings should be plants in which we worship and train soldiers to win souls and not just sanctuaries that are used five or six hours a week.

Where I work in Asia we have a dozen schools of preaching meeting in "church buildings," and students eat their breakfast and lunch in them. The fact is that the Holy Spirit acknowledged that the saints of the first century. held "feasts of charity (love)" (Jude 12). There are religious people around the world who strictly forbid putting a toilet in their meeting halls or even in a house where they eat, but forbidding brethren will put a toilet in the church building and forbid putting in a table on which to have a potluck supper. Note clearly, that the recognition that the saints of the first century held "feasts of charity" does not authorize the church going into the entertainment or recreation business.