Issues, Questions, Gleanings, Brotherhood News, Bible Study, etc., from Tennessee Bible College

Issues
Malcolm L. Hill

Some churches of Christ see no wrong in hand-clapping in the worship service. They tell us this is not instrumental music, therefore, it is not wrong. Why not have a foot-washng during the worship service? This is not instrumental music. Why not speak with unknown tongues in the worship service? This is not instrumental music. The culture of our day may suggest that we clap hands in worship to God but the Bible does not authorize it.

Does an elder have to have more than one child to qualify to be an elder? No. A child can stand for children (Gen. 21:7). Does one child constitute children when we pay our income tax? If God had said an elder must have a child then if he had more than one, someone would have said he is not qualified because he has more than a child — he has children.

Is it scriptural to divide the worship service up and have children's church? No. God wants the assembly to stay together (Heb. 10:25). If the assembly does not have to stay together, then there is no need for any assembly. Each Christian family could stay at home and worship.

In What Are We Glorying?
Malcolm L. Hill

The Bible teaches us we should glory in the cross of Christ only (Gal. 6:14).

Some in the church seem to be glorying in their Ph.D. degree and their education. Some are glorying in their kind. They have a little crowd of friends that gather together like baby chicks under the wings of their mother hen. Some are glorying in their appearance on various programs. Some glory in their religious journal and its acceptance by the world. They seek recognition above all things.

All worldly stuff will pass in due process of time, but God and His Word will endure forever (I John 2:15-17; I Pet. 1:24-25).

Baptism of the Holy Spirit
Malcolm L. Hill

There has been much stir in certain quarters of our brotherhood over the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Christian. This is not a new issue within the body of Christ. It goes back decades. Much fuss has arisen over the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Some among us today believe that the heart is baptized in the Holy Spirit when one becomes a Christian. All that we know within the body of Christ do not believe that this baptism carries with it miracles of any sort. They believe that baptism of the Holy Spirit is the same as the gift of the Holy Spirit as mentioned in Acts 2:38. They tell us that baptism in the Holy Spirit does not carry any degree or power of the Holy Spirit. This does not bother us. If the time comes that brethren believe miracles, the gifts of the Holy Spirit as mentioned in I Corinthians 12:8-11, revelations, hints, nudges, etc. are given by the Holy Spirit today, then we will mark those who so believe and avoid them. We have no problem with those who believe the Holy Spirit dwells in them and is given to them at baptism. Some brethren are willing to split the church over the way a man states his case in the usage of words. Semantics is one thing but false doctrine is another. Let us not divide the Body over how people say things.

Following the Flesh
Malcolm L. Hill

It is a sin to condemn and work against a righteous cause. On the other hand it is a sin to uphold and support a wicked cause. Many of the preachers and elders in the church of Christ seem not to know this. Maybe they know it but have so little respect for Bible doctrine that they do not care what the Bible teaches about the matter. At one time the apostle Paul fought against the church of Christ because he followed the flesh (Gal. 1:13-14). But the apostle was honest in heart because when he found out what he was doing, he repented and corrected the matter. Why can't the brethren of our day be just as honest as was the apostle Paul and get things right? Some have fought Tennessee Bible College without scriptural reason or purpose. We would like to see the opposers give a Bible reason for their stand against the school. We are doing fine without such people, but we would like to have all good men with us in our work. Is there one out there that would like to meet us in a public discussion about the matter? If so, let us hear from you. The brethren of this stripe belong to the anti-orphan-home crowd. Antis refuse fellowship because you do not agree with their personal opinion.

The Northeastern Seaboard
Malcolm L. Hill

The northeastern seaboard has 181 million souls living on it. These 181 million need the gospel of Christ for they are lost—just as lost as the people in Russia, Japan, Africa, India, or any other place on earth without the gospel. We have neglected our own people by flying over them to get to another part of the world to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. We are for mission work around the globe and across the land. If you know of contacts we could make for the Lord's church on the northeastern seaboard, please let us hear from you. We are trying to get things together. Contact David Hill or Malcolm Hill about this. If you have suggestions, let us hear from you.

Abortion and Your Vote
Malcolm L. Hill

I am a democrat by birth. All my people were democrats, so far as I know. The old Democratic Party was the best party, so far as I am concerned. So, as I write this material, I do not want anyone to think that I am a dyed-in-the-wool Republican.

The Democratic Party has let a small minority of this country rule it. These extremists have steered the party into far-out liberalism and have pushed many of us in directions we have not wanted to go. Why have many democrats permitted this to take place? It is due to principles that have to do with life and death.

The abortion issue is one of the leading causes of why many democrats cannot stay with the party. Sure, there are a few others, but this issue is one of the leading reasons why we cannot stay with the party and vote the democratic ticket in the presidential election. The majority of the democrats did not leave the party, but the party has left us. It is heart-rending that such has taken place. When will they return to those good, basic fundamentals they used to stand for? Will they ever? I truly hope so!

I want to deal with the abortion issue and show you why I cannot vote for a presidential candidate that is pro-choice; that women can abort their unborn babies as they wish.

Those who believe in abortion by choice cannot believe the Bible. They may say they do but in reality they do not. The Bible teaches that a new life takes place at conception; not some time between conception and birth or, perhaps, at birth. I shall proceed to prove my point by the Bible.

The angel told Mary that Elizabeth, her cousin, "hath conceived a son in her old age" (Luke 1:36). Notice, please, that at conception he was a son; not that at some time in the future he would become a son, but she "hath conceived a son."

Job 3:3 declares and sets forth that in the mind of God from conception until the child is born that which is conceived is a human being. It does not become a human being somewhere along the line after conception. God says it is a "man child" from conception.

In Hosea 9:11 God said that the children of Ephraim would die at birth, or that they would die by abortion, or that they would die at conception. Notice, please, that they were just as much children at conception as they were at birth! Now, whom will you believe? Will you believe the Bible or these pro-choice advocates that tell us that at some time after conception the fertilized egg develops into a human being?

In Numbers 5:28 the Bible says that a woman shall conceive seed. This means that a human being starts at conception. When we have seed corn, is it corn when planted or does it have to grow to a point at which time it becomes corn?

In Psalms 51:5 David said he was David at conception. He said, "In sin did my mother conceive me." He did not say that at some time during pregnancy he became David and his mother carried him in conception in sin. At the time David was conceived his mother was a sinner.

There are other places in the Bible which bear out that at conception we have a human being. Sure, it must grow; but size and age has nothing to do with the fertilized egg being a human being.

Now that we have proven from the Bible that a new human being starts at conception, think of all the human beings that have been murdered by abortion. Some women argue that they have a right to do as they wish with their own body. But this is not the question. The question is: Do they have a right to murder and take the life of their unborn babies? They have no more right to destroy the unborn than they do their children who have already been born.

In talking with people about abortion and voting, I have heard different ones say that how we vote will have nothing to do with abortion. They tell me that abortion will take place anyway. But is this good reasoning? Is it the right kind of reasoning? Would you, as a Bible-believer, vote to make prostitution legal since it is going to take place anyway? Would you vote for a candidate that was for legalizing drug abuse since it is going to take place anyway? Would you vote for a candidate that is legalizing murder since murder is going to take place anyway? Would you vote for a candidate that is for legalizing lying since people are going to lie anyway? Would you vote for a candidate that is for legalizing child abuse since it is going to take place anyway? Do you call yourself a Bible-believer and reject this kind of reasoning?

How can a Christian vote for a presidential candidate or any other person running for public office that is willing to make murder legal? So, as we prepare for the upcoming elections, we should keep this foremost in our thinking. God will hold us accountable if we do not. Remember, we are talking about life and death when it comes to abortion, and we are talking about human beings being murdered before birth. The unborn cannot vote and make a choice, but we can. God help us to do right!

Tidbits

There is a move in the United States by some government officials to ban parents from punishing their children when the children do wrong. Does the federal government have this right in our free nation? If parents are inhumane in the correction of their children, the government already has laws that permit them to look into the situation and make correction. If we cannot pray in government buildings because of the separation of church and state, how is it that the civil law has the right to step into our homes and the rearing of our children? Is not this the combining of state and the rearing of children in the home? How much further will officials push ridiculous doings? Our government and some citizens are so mixed up and inconsistent it is deplorable
—Malcolm L. Hill

If something is not done to correctly punish law breakers, this nation is headed for serious trouble. All the detention centers are full and criminals increasing day by day. Judgment needs to be made and sentences passed and activated swiftly. The death penalty for those worthy of such needs to be carried out without delay. Time softens and mellows people and they forget the greatness of such crimes. We should not wait 20 or 30 years to punish the wicked.
—Malcolm L. Hill

Some are asking where Jesus would stand on the death penalty. Jesus is for the death penalty for those worthy of such. Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit have always been One in work and purpose. They cannot be separated (John 17:20-21). Jesus was a participant in writing the Old Testament with God the Father. The Old Testament said a life for a life (Deut. 19:21). Jesus was for this and a part of making this law. The death penalty was inflicted for murder (Gen. 9:5-6; Num. 35:16-33). Jesus was for and supported this law. Jesus was not going against the Old Testament when he told those wicked men who brought the woman caught in adultery if they were without guilt to cast the first stone (John 8:7). He said let this adulterous woman be stoned if you are without this sin. Christ was actually upholding the law of Moses in this situation. He was not forbidding the stoning of this woman but upholding the Old Testament teaching. The government has the right to take the life of one who is worthy of death (Rom. 13:1-5).

The Bible teaches the death penalty was administered for adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:24); incest (Lev. 20:11-14); bestiality (Exod. 22:19); sodomy or homosexuality (Lev. 18:22; 20:13); rebellious children (Deut. 21:18-21); rape of a betrothed virgin (Deut. 22:25); kidnapping (Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7); a priest's daughter who committed fornication (Lev. 21:9); witchcraft (Exod. 22:18); offering human sacrifice (Lev. 20:2-5); for striking or cursing father or mother (Exod. 21:15-17; Lev. 20:9); disobedience to parents (Deut. 21:18-21); theft (Zech. 5:3-4); blasphemy (Lev. 24:11-14); for working on the Sabbath (Exod. 35:2); for prophesying falsely (Deut. 13:1-5); sacrificing to false gods (Exod. 22:20); refusing to abide by the decision of the court (Deut. 17:12); and for treason (I Kings 2:25, Esther 2:23). Jesus stood behind all these commandments and they had their origin in Him. Where did Jesus stand when it came to the death penalty? He was for it when such was necessary.
—Malcolm L. Hill

Does God intervene in our prayers as Christians? Some say yes and some say no. Let us look at what some have said in days gone by. Brother Steve Ellis said, "May God help us. . ." (Memphis School of Preaching Lectures 1993, p. 15). Some say God does not help us.

Brother Tom Warren said, "Thus, it seems to be the case that in order to prepare certain men to perform a particular mission, by His providence, God brings men into situations of suffering" (Memphis School of Preaching Lectures 1993, p. 27). Thus brother Warren believed that God did intervene at times in the affairs of men today.

Brother Tom Warren further said, "It must be noted and kept in mind that God no longer performs miracles on earth. Some people wonder: If there are no miracles, then how can God answer prayer? The obvious answer is: by His non-miraculous providence" (Memphis School of Preaching Lectures 1993, p. 82).

Brother Terry Claunch said, "Parents ought to pray for their children's Bible Class teachers to be strong" (Memphis School of Preaching Lectures 1993, p. 86). Brother Claunch further said, "Jude taught that prayer helps when one needs to be built up or edified (v. 20)" (Memphis School of Preaching Lectures 1993, p. 88). Again, brother Terry says, "Pray for our brethren, that they may have strong hearts to know right from wrong" (Memphis School of Preaching Lectures 1993, p. 89).

Brother Dub McClish said, "Yes, God answers prayer—such is rooted in His Nature" (Memphis School of Preaching Lectures 1993, pp. 236-237).

Brother Winford Claiborne said that Christians are commanded of God to pray: "Praying, dear friends, is one phase of our obedience to God, but it is not the only one" (Memphis School of Preaching Lectures 1993, p. 267).

Brother Curtis Cates said, "Our responsibilities are too great not to pray." He further said, "It is critical that Christians pray!" (Memphis School of Preaching Lectures 1993, p. iv of the introduction).

Brother Billy Bland said, "The ability to commune with God is certainly a great blessing" (Memphis School of Preaching Lectures 1993, p. 126). He further said, "James informs us that, 'the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much' (James 5:16b)" (Memphis School of Preaching Lectures 1993, p. 127). He further says, "The word supplication is the idea of petitioning God for a particular need" (Memphis School of Preaching Lectures 1993, p. 129.).

Brother Garland Elkins said, "The word supplications refers to a petition for a particular benefit; a request for need. We are taught to ask God for blessings (Matt. 6:11; 7:7; James 4:2)" (Memphis School of Preaching Lectures 1993, p. 138). He further says, "Prayer is a great source of Christian strength" (Memphis School of Preaching Lectures 1993, p. 138).

Brother Keith A. Mosier said, "Therefore, for one to take the position that the Holy Spirit is active in the Christian's prayer will offend some, but not to take such a position would deny that which the Scriptures clearly teach. The Holy Spirit is said to help our infirmities. . .'for we know not what we should pray as we ought' (Rom. 8:26b)" (Memphis School of Preaching Lectures 1993, p. 424).

Why these quotes? Because some brethren teach that God does not answer prayers. They believe it is wrong to ask God for help.
—Malcolm L. Hill

There is something wrong when brethren in congregations do not prize highly the intimate spiritual association to be found in Christ with their brethren.
—Mac Deaver

The reverent and worshipful fear of the Lord is the beginning and the principal and choice part of knowledge.
—Solomon, The Proverbs 1:7

It is just as sinful to withhold fellowship from the righteous as it is to fellowship false doctrine (I John 1:7; II John 9-11).
—Malcolm L. Hill

It is just as sinful to condemn a righteous work as it is to uphold and support a wicked work (Acts 9:1-6).
—Malcolm L. Hill

It is just as sinful to condemn a righteous man as it is to support a wicked man (Prov. 17:15).
—Malcolm L. Hill

It is just as sinful to condemn a faithful gospel preacher as it is to commend and support a false teacher (II John 9-11).
—Malcolm L. Hill

It is just as sinful to misrepresent a righteous cause and a worthy servant of God as it is to preach and teach false doctrines and damnable heresies (Jude 14-19).
—Malcolm L. Hill

Do They Sing 'Amazing Grace'?

We have some preachers and brethren who believe that God has nothing to do with the operation of the world at the present, and their position pushes them to disbelieve that God answers the prayers of Christians. They do not believe that God intervenes in present affairs. They reject "divine intervention," thus, they do not believe in the providence of God. Most of these brethren are afraid to come out with their true belief along this line. They know that the greater part of the brotherhood will be against them. Their position would have many of our hymns we sing to be unscriptural. Do they sing them? Does the church where they attend sing them? Let us show you what we mean.

They could not sing "Be With Me Lord." They could not sing "Hold to God's Unchanging Hand." They could not sing "Great is Our God." They could not sing "Tell Them of Jesus." They could not sing "A Wonderful Savior." They could not sing "Amazing Grace." They could not sing "A Blessing in Prayer." They could not sing "Abide With Me." They could not sing "Anywhere With Jesus." In fact, the songbook they could use would be very thin because many songs in our hymns tell us about God and His being with us in providence, as well as being with us in the world.

We pray for God to strengthen us as Christians. We pray for God to bless the Lord's Supper, and we ask Him to help us take it in a worthy manner. We pray for God to be with us when our loved ones die or are sick. We pray for God to be with our family and our children in particular. We pray for God to see us through perilous times. We pray to God to help the church grow. We pray to God for many, many things. If God has nothing to do with us, then for what can we pray? When folks take God out of the world and His church, things get quite lonely and dead.

God still lives and works in the universe, which includes the world where we live. How hopeless and sad this life would be if Christians did not have God to lean on and have as a helper — and this does not mean that God still works miracles today. We do not know how God works today, but we know He does because the Bible teaches us He does, and this is enough. We will leave the way God works today up to Him and go on trusting His word.
—Malcolm L. Hill

The Age of Accountability

When does one reach the age of accountability before God according to the Bible? We are not the least bit interested in some crank or crackpot giving us his view. Through my years of preaching and teaching I have heard of all kinds of ideas along this line, some so absurd that they got over into the ridiculous.

The Bible nowhere states the exact age of accountability before God. If the Bible does not state an age, then there must not be an exact age for one obeying the gospel and becoming a Christian.

There are certain principles to follow in establishing the age of accountability for each individual. The year age may differ but these principles do not differ but stay the same. The age of accountability before God depends on a number of things. First, the home in which one is reared. Second, the amount of Bible teaching that has been done with reference to the one reaching the age of accountability. Third, the ability one has to comprehend the Bible and its teaching. Fourth, the age one becomes sincere about God and the Christian life. Fifth, parents play a part in the age of accountability of their children. Have they taught faithfully and fully what the Bible teaches about what one must do to be saved along the way? Sixth, does the young person understand what faith is? Does he understand what repentance is? Does he understand what confessing Christ is? Does he understand what water baptism is? Does he know in general what it is to live the Christian life? No one is a mature Christian when he obeys the gospel but grows in spirituality like a newborn baby in the flesh (I Pet. 2:1-2). Seventh, when children get old enough that they in general know right from wrong according to the Bible. They know that adultery is wrong. They know that sex out of wedlock is wrong. They know that petting is wrong. They know that missing church is wrong. They know to some extent about the meaning of the Lord's Supper. They understand words that should be spoken and words that should not be spoken. Eight, when children truly believe they are lost and would go to hell if they died. All these things are the heart and core as to whether a young man or a young woman is ready to be baptized and become a Christian.

Anyone who would discourage a child from obeying the gospel who knows the above things is doing a serious thing. God forbid that I do such! When I have talked to boys and girls about obeying the gospel, I have always asked them to be baptized again, if at some time in the future they become doubtful and worried. There is nothing to lose in doing this. If it did not take the first time, then it will take the second time. If it took the first time, than all one accomplishes the second time is that he gets wet.

Children reach the age of accountability before God about the same time they start noticing the difference in boys and girls. Parents are wise to watch out for that age and start working with their children. Children have no business seeing the nakedness of their parents, brothers and sisters, and close kin, when they reach the age of eight years old, give or take, with each individual child. I am not saying this is the age they need to obey the gospel, I am only saying that we need to be watchful about such matters. I believe it very unwise when parents pay little or no attention to the clothing worn by eight-year-old boys and girls. None of us have problems with two- to six-year-olds turning flips and such like but when a child reaches such an age and certain maturity, then parents need to give special guidance and start special practices. I do not believe it is wise at all when boys and girls reach the age of around eight years old to take them mixed-bathing in a public swimming pool or place. I do not believe it wise at all to let them mix-dance at this age. I believe many of our problems with our children have developed through the years because of such things. We are to "train up" and not wait until they "grow up" to teach them the word of God and the Christian life of which modesty is a part as well as a proper understanding about sex.

I do my best to teach what the Bible teaches on all religious things. May God help us to be "wise as serpents and harmless as doves."
—Malcolm L. Hill

Church of Christ Identity?

In the Christian Chronicle May 7, 2007 there is an article entitled "Does Anyone Have a Plan to Help the Church of Christ Rediscover Its Identity?" We have never lost our identity at the Northeast church of Christ in Cookeville, Tennessee, so we do not need a rediscovery plan. If one will stay with the Bible and the Bible only, he will not need a rediscovery and an identity plan. God has a plan for the church that has lost its identity as a New Testament church and wants to rediscover its identity to belong to God. We recommend that all read their Bible and obey it — this is God's plan and it is the perfect one for all mankind. If you need guidance in your studies, feel free to call on us.
—Malcolm L. Hill, President, TBC

Max Lucado

We are sorry that Max Lucado is having health problems. He has stepped down as the senior minister (whatever this means) of Oak Hills Church in San Antonio, Texas. Maybe the folks there will get a preacher that will preach Bible truth. They have gone a long way from the Bible by following Lucado's leads. The membership there is said to be around 5,500. Lucado falls into the category of those mentioned in II Peter 2:20-22. Sad but true. He loves and fellowships the Pentecostal Holiness folks. In our neck of the woods they call themselves Holy Rollers. —Malcolm L. Hill

Bible Authority

We are living in an age when members of the church of Christ in general pay little or no attention to the authority of the Bible and the same is true with some gospel preachers. Brethren fellowship whom they please and they disfellowship whom they please. The Bible has no say-so in various matters. To cut off faithful brethren without sin and error being involved is to cut off God (I John 1:7). To condemn the righteous and uphold the wicked is an abomination to the God of this universe (Prov. 17:15). The righteous have had enough of such silliness. —Malcolm L. Hill

Politics in the Church

There are preachers who, like politicians, are running for position and prestige. They care little for Bible doctrine and Christianity. Their chief concern is: "What will it do for me?" Is it any wonder that the church is in the mess it is in? Many brethren do not know and they do not care to know the truth. God will, in due process of time, take care of things by His divine providential workings. —Malcolm L. Hill

Enemies of TBC

Tennessee Bible College is as well-known throughout the world as any school its size. Our friends have helped in this work but our enemies have done more to advertize us than one can imagine. We almost feel that we owe them money for their talking about the school. We ask all to keep on talking about Tennessee Bible College. All we ask is that all tell the truth about our work. —Malcolm L. Hill

A Letter to James Kennedy

August 7, 2007

Mr. James Kennedy
P. O. Box 40
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33302

Dear Dr. Kennedy:

I heard most of your sermon entitled "The Root of the Problem" on local TV wherein you dealt with the evils of atheism and evolution. I must say you did a good job in dealing with these evils. Atheism and evolution have brought on misery but they have nothing to offer for building up human beings. You hit a very vital point when you showed they were guilty of murder and human suffering.

Dr. Kennedy, what about the Roman Catholic Church and its persecution and murder of innocent people? We know of no other institution on earth that has brought on needless suffering and death of the innocent more than the Roman Catholic Church as reliable historians will testify. Will you preach about them? If not, why not? Please advise me about your position on this matter. If you have and preach against the evils of the Roman Catholic Church, then more power to you. If you will not, why not? If evolution falls because of the evils, sufferings, and death, then so does the Roman Catholic Church. Do you agree or disagree? We teach against both.

Will close hoping to receive your reply. Islam and the Roman Catholic Church are very much alike in their bid for dominance in the world.

With kindest personal regards, I am

Sincerely,

Malcolm L. Hill

Modesty and the Christian

Modesty has always been a problem in the world and to some extent in the church. The Bible teaches us that we should clothe ourselves in modest apparel (I Tim. 2:9-13). But what is modest apparel? This verse does not exactly set forth the complete answer but the Bible does. When is one considered naked or overly exposed in physical body? The Levitical priests were considered naked by the Lord when their thighs were exposed (Exodus 28:42). Isaiah supports the statement of Exodus 28:42 in Isaiah 47:2-3. He says when they made bare their thigh their nakedness would be uncovered. So God's standard for modesty includes covering the thigh. Anything exposed above the knee when it comes to the lower part of one's body is considered nakedness according to the Bible.

Of course I want to keep this material on as high a plane as I know how to keep it with dignity, respect, and honor, so please keep your mind and thinking in the spirit I am writing this. I want to talk about the exposure of the mid-section of the body since some women and especially young ladies are doing this. They are wearing blue jeans that expose the naval and somewhat upward while also exposing the body to some extent below the naval and add to this the blue jeans worn are as tight as can be. Is there any father who loves his daughter as he should, that is happy with this kind of dress? Is there any mother who loves her daughter happy with this? There is no doubt in my mind that such is immodest and must be rejected by Christians.

Preachers have no authority from God to set their standard for modest dress nor do elders. Moms and dads do not have the right to set the standard for modest dress of their children nor do husbands and wives. Modesty is determined by God and by God alone.

With the way people dress today, is there any wonder why we have so many sex offenses and crimes committed? The lack of proper dress and attire by Bathsheba brought on some serious crimes of that day. Ladies, most men take immodest dress as some kind of a "come-on." Men talk about this matter openly. Many ladies may be innocent about immodesty but the men are not innocent for the greater part. So why not dress as God wishes and forget the world (Rom. 12:1-2)?
—Malcolm L. Hill

The Mission of the Church

by B. C. Goodpasture, Gospel Advocate, Volume XC, No. 21, Nashville, TN, May 20, 1948.

Everything which God has made in creation and redemption has a mission. Nothing walks with aimless feet in the economy of God. The church is a divine institution—it is of divine origin. It, therefore, has a mission.

The building of the church was an expensive undertaking. The Lord could create the heavens and the earth without the shedding of a single drop of blood, but without the shedding of his own blood he could not establish his church. "Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it" (Eph. 5:25). He purchased the church with his own blood (Acts 20:28). Even before his death Jesus sacrificed for the church. "For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might become rich" (II Cor. 8:9). He was rich in terms of heavenly and eternal values, yet he became poor, "emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross" (Phil. 2:7-8). Surely Christ would not have made such sacrifices for the church unless it was to have a mission in some measure worthy of its cost. What, then, is the mission of the church?

This question can be answered both negatively and positively. It is not the mission of the church to furnish amusement for the world or even for its own members. Innocent amusement in proper proportion has its place in the life of all normal persons, but it is not the business of the church to furnish it. The church would come off a poor second if it undertook to compete with institutions established for the express purpose of entertaining people. It would make itself ridiculous if it entered into such competition. Again, it is not the responsibility of the church as such to furnish recreation for its members. A certain amount of recreation is necessary to the health and happiness of the individual. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy, it is said, and rightly said; but it is not the function of the church to furnish the play. The church was not established to feature athletics. Rather it emphasizes the principle that "bodily exercise is profitable for a little; but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life which now is, and of that which is to come" (I Tim. 4:8). Sometimes one would conclude, from the emphasis given to recreation, that godliness is profitable for a little, and that bodily exercise is profitable for all things.

For the church to turn aside from its divine work to furnish amusement and recreation is to pervert its mission. It is to degrade its mission. Amusement and recreation should stem from the home rather than the church. The church, like Nehemiah, has a great work to do; and it should not come down on the plains of Ono to amuse and entertain. As the church turns its attention to amusement and recreation, it will be shorn of its power as Samson was when his hair was cut. Only as the church becomes worldly, as it pillows its head on the lap of Delilah, will it want to turn from its wonted course to relatively unimportant matters. Imagine Paul selecting and training a group of brethren to compete in the Isthmian games! Of his work at Corinth he said: "For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (I Cor. 2:2). What, then, is the work of the church?

On the day of Pentecost, the birthday of the church, we find it preaching the gospel. It is reasonable to expect the church, under the leadership of the apostles, to be engaged in its divinely-assigned work. Christ, before his ascension, had laid upon his disciples, his church, the grave and momentous responsibility of preaching the gospel to every creature in every age of the world (Mark 16:15-16). During the lifetime of the apostles the church was busily engaged in preaching the gospel to the remote ends of the earth. In his First Epistle to Timothy, Paul said: "These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly; but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (3:14-15). The church is the "pillar and ground of the truth"—not truth in general, but rather gospel truth in particular. The church must support and preach the gospel always as a part of its divine mission.

Further, the church in Jerusalem "continued stedfastly in the apostles' teaching." In addition to preaching the gospel to alien sinners, the church taught and built up its own members that they might "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" (II Pet. 3:18). The Lord has made ample provisions for the edification of his people, the church. "He gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ: till we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a fullgrown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we may be no longer children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, in craftiness, after the wiles of error" (Eph. 4:11-14). It is, therefore, the work of the church to promote the growth and development of its members.

Finally, the church in Jerusalem ministered to the material needs of its worthy poor (Acts 4:32-37; 6:1-6). The Gentile churches sent help to the brethren in Judea (Acts 11:29-30; Rom. 15:25-26). Paul said that he was always ready to help those in need (Gal. 2:10). It is a part of the work of the church to help those who are in need, but the church is under no obligations to help those who will not help themselves. "If any will not work," said Paul, "neither let them eat" (II Thess. 3:10).

If the church will discharge its duty in preaching the gospel, in edifying its members, and in helping the worthy poor, it will not have desire or time merely to amuse and entertain.

Review of Burtt's "Modernism"
by Hugo McCord

Gospel Advocate, January 1, 1948.

Modernism is just another device of Satan to ensnare more of Christ's people. Of course modernists do not know they are being used by the devil. They consider themselves advanced and modern and quite superior to old-fashioned Bible believers. But the doctrine they espouse crucifies Christ afresh and makes him an open shame. How can he thus be betrayed in the house of his friends? Because the doctrine they espouse is that each man's own religious experience is final authority. That being true, Christ is not essential, and his death for all men (II Cor. 5:14) is a farce. Modernists have surrendered.

Because of a small number of inaccuracies in a much-copied Bible, modernists have thought the only intelligent explanation is to deny its literal inspiration. But such a denial removes the very foundation of true religion. To reject its inspiration is to reject its truthfulness. Trifling errors (perhaps by copyists) can never be considered as grave a problem as to deny Christ's oft-repeated claim for a literally inspired Bible. If Christ were mistaken in that claim, he might have been mistaken in something else, and thus assurance is gone. Listen to his definiteness: "For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." And the apostles spoke "not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth."

But the only inspiration modernists recognize is a mighty act in history, a movement of God in the affairs of men. They point to such an inspiration in Israel's history. But such a defense is far more vulnerable than the Bible claim for inspiration; for if mighty historic movements prove God's inspiration, he certainly has inspired a variety of religions, not to say contradictions. Witness Buddhism, Mohammedism, Mormonism, and Communism. A definition of inspiration that must include and commend such a motley is self-refuting.

Modernists' conception of revelation is as ill-fitting as of inspiration. To them there is no written revelation of God's will. The Bible is still retained, says Mr. Burtt, only because of its proved value through millennia to make men better. But true revelation from God consists, he avers, in the inward experience of every man. Whatever one feels religiously is God's revelation to him. Such a definition includes not merely ecstatic "Holy Rollers," but also flesh-gouging Baal devotees and child-burning Molech worshipers. No modernist would include such degenerate religious activities as of God, but the modernistic definition of revelation cannot exclude them. If pragmatism is fallacious, as Mr. Trotter observed, because it has to include multiple and contradictory truths, and because it leaves room to ask, "Is there any truth?" so modernism has involved itself. Time would fail in the describing of the varied and disagreeing religious experiences of men, yet according to the modernists' postulate they must all be truth. Pilate could intelligently and cynically ask modernists: "What is truth?"

Modernism, says Mr. Burtt, holds that salvation is the integration of a man with his environment; that sin is only a maladjustment; that Christ is but "a winsome moral leader of men and nothing more." Satan has triumphed. First century infidelity has in the twentieth century become the essence of Christianity! Prayer for special benefits ("give us this day our daily bread") is antiquated! Marriage laws of Christ are by modern man found lacking, and must be loosened to fit changing needs!

There are modernists who have not gone to the extreme as described in the preceding paragraph. There are many who still believe Christ is the Son of God—divine in a sense that other men are not divine; that he became Incarnate God. However, these latter, it seems to this student, are hopelessly inconsistent. They accept Jesus as the revelation of God, as the Word of God, and yet they reject many things in which Jesus believed. Jesus believed that at "the beginning of the creation" God made male and female, and through his apostle Christ called their names Adam and Eve (I Tim. 2:13). But many who respect Jesus' divinity have no hesitancy in denouncing the Garden of Eden story as a primitive myth. Again, Jesus believed in the historicity of Cain and Abel (Matt. 23:35), but many who reverence the Master consider such a belief unscientific. Further, Jesus did not believe the Noachian deluge is just a tale taken from Babylonian antecedents; he believed in the literal flood of the Genesis account, which he reverenced as the word of God (Matt. 24:37-28; John 5:46; Luke 8:21). But there are those who do not think they desecrate that Lord when they acquiesce in attempts to "debunk" the story.

Moreover, there are modernists who believe in Jesus' resurrection, but who deny the historicity of Jonah. Yet the Son of God believed as literally in Jonah's resurrection from a three-day fish prison as in his own resurrection from a three-day rock tomb. To reject both such reported resurrections is consistent, or to accept both is consistent. But to accept one and reject the other is to this student an impossible position. The God who could raise a dead man is not so limited that he could not keep Jonah alive. The Christ of God, moreover, could never have slipped into telling a mythical Jonah story as if it really hapened, and then to base his own gospel on it (Matt. 12:40)!

Modernism is not the essence of Christianity; it is unwitting infidelity. Once a departure is made from the moorings of first-century Christianity, there is no stopping place this side of "shipwreck of the faith."