What Is Balance?
Ronald D. Gilbert

We hear a great deal of things being said today concerning brethren, churches, and schools being "balanced." How one defines the word "balance" is very important. If one defines "balance" as never offending false teachers or speaking out when things are wrong, then the Lord and the apostles were not balanced. Perhaps to the liberal everyone who thinks differently than he does is not balanced. Perhaps also the anti thinks all who do not see things as he does are unbalanced. Is there no way to determine the true meaning of the word "balance" as it relates to an individual, congregation, or school? Is it just a subjective term, and being balanced is just whatever you feel "balanced" means?

One of the definitions as given by the American Heritage Dictionary is "strike a balance—to achieve a state or position between extremes." Could we not then say that a balanced preacher, congregation, or school is a faithful one? Can one know who is faithful or unfaithful? John 8:32 says we can know the truth. I John 4:1 tells us to "try the spirits." I Thessalonians 5:21 tells us to "prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

It is obvious then that one can know the difference between truth and error (Rom. 16:17-18; Eph. 5:11; II Tim. 2:15-18; Titus 3:10; II John 9-11).

Can a local congregation be faithful in all things? The following things, along with others, would be involved in a local church being balanced or faithful: (1) Practicing church discipline; (2) Being involved in evangelism; (3) Having some type of benevolent program; and (4) Standing for the truth and against liberalism and anti-ism.

What about a congregation that seems to have only one issue? Pick any one of the above five topics and say that a local congregation makes that one issue their only issue. Suppose evangelism is all they ever talk about. Suppose they never teach or practice church discipline. Could one say they are balanced or faithful? No! This would be a good example of an unbalanced congregation.

What about a Christian college or preacher training school—can they be balanced or unbalanced? I realize there is a difference between a local congregation and a school. However, can the designation of balanced or unbalanced, faithful or unfaithful, be placed on that school? Where would you place the following schools with regard to whether they are faithful or unfaithful: (1) Abilene Christian, (2) Pepperdine University, (3) David Lipscomb University, (4) Rochester College, (5) Harding University, (6) Sunset International Bible Institute, and (7) International Bible College?

What are the criteria you would use to make such claims? Are there doctrinal errors associated with the schools mentioned above? If a school or individual is off on the biblical doctrine of fellowship, does this make them unfaithful?

Should our schools, brotherhood papers, and local church bulletins have a policy as to who speaks there or writes in their papers? Would you consider a congregation or school balanced who invited Jubilee speakers to come in and speak for them? Would you consider a brotherhood paper balanced that invited faculty members from the above-mentioned institutions to write for them?

What some today appear to be doing is to call faithful men "unbalanced" who are opposed to false teachers and liberalism and seek to expose such. Again, who will define "balance"? Is it a meaningless word? Is it purely subjective? I think not! With the Bible as our standard we can determine who is faithful and who is not.

It is past time for many church leaders and school administrators and editors of our brotherhood papers to stop contributing to the problem by using men who are unfaithful either in word or in deed. If a man is a false teacher on the issue of fellowship, does this not make him a false teacher just as much so as if he were a false teacher on baptism or the church?

Balanced brethren are faithful brethren. Let’s all strive to follow God’s Word and be balanced. Some brethren need to stop fighting against faithful brethren who are demanding that we follow the Bible on the issue of fellowship. "Thou therefore gird up thy loins, and arise, and speak unto them all that I command thee. . ." (Jer. 1:17).

Editorial
Malcolm L. Hill

The church at Thyatira had a woman named Jezebel in it who taught false doctrine. Jezebel taught the members to commit sexual immorality and to worship idols (Rev. 2:20). How long this woman had been in that congregation spreading her false doctrine is not stated. However, the Bible does tell us that she was given time to repent and she did not (Rev. 2:21).

When God wrote this letter to the church at Thyatira, was He encouraging them to let this false doctrine go on and do nothing about it? Some seem to think so because they use these passages in Revelation along with other passages found in the Bible to try to prove that we can fellowship false teachers and false brethren and still be acceptable to God. The letter to the church at Thyatira was written to rebuke them for letting this woman go on with her false teaching in the church there (Rev. 2:20).

It should be remembered that Ephesians 5:11 was written for the church at Thyatira as well as for the church at Ephesus. Romans 16:17-18 was written for the church at Thyatira as well as to the Roman brethren. II John 9-11 was written for the church at Thyatira as well as for the elect lady and her children. All such passages apply to us today as well as to all the churches and Christians of the first century. To argue otherwise would be a crazy notion indeed.

One thing that claims my attention about the church at Thyatira and brings about some consideration is the statement, "I gave her space to repent" (Rev. 2:21). Just what does this signify? Does it mean that God set in His mind a time to cut her off but she did not know about it? Does it mean that God spoke plainly to her and set a definite time for her to repent, about which she was informed and if she did not repent within that time limit, then He would deal with her?

The Bible tells us, "A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject" (Titus 3:10). Paul wrote Timothy that some were "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (II Tim. 3:7). Jesus informs us that if we have something against a brother we are to go to him. If we cannot settle the matter between us, then we are to take with us two or three others. If we still cannot settle the matter, then we are to tell it to the church. If the brother will not hear the church, then he is to be rejected in disfellowship (Matt. 18:15-17). The Bible teaches us that if one is set on being ignorant and going astray then so be it (Rev. 22:11). The Word of the Lord says, "To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin (James 4:17).

From these passages we learn a number of things: 1. We learn that God expects us to find or learn the truth (II Tim. 3:7). 2. We learn that to keep on fellowshipping error when error is generally known is a sin (Titus 3:10). 3. We learn that some do not intend to follow the truth (Rev. 22:11). 4. We learn that God holds his people accountable when they know to do better and do it not (James 4:17). 5. We learn that when one openly rejects the truth of the Bible, then he is to be rejected and disfellowshipped (Matt. 18:15-17). From all of this we learn that it takes time to bring all these things about. How much time? Certainly not a lifetime! When discussion has been had and the subject has been sufficiently exhausted and the truth has been learned on the vital points under consideration, then repentance should take place. If repentance does not take place, then withdrawing fellowship should be brought into the picture.

How long does God fellowship us? He fellowships us so long as we walk in the light of His Word to the best of our ability (I John 1:7). When we deliberately and intentionally reject plain Bible doctrine on any salvation point, then God disfellowships us. When should the Christian disfellowship a brother in the Lord? He should do so when God does so. Our fellowship with a fellow member of the church depends on his fellowship with God. If God does not fellowship a person, how could a child of God go on fellowshipping this person? Our eternal destiny depends on whom we fellowship in religion (II John 9-11). And whom we fellowship in religion depends on whom God fellowships (I John 1:7).

Worship
L. D. Harless

Apart from all theological speculation, so rife in our time, the true worshipper must accept and follow a simple sequence:

1. The correct object of worship—God (I Cor. 8:5-6).
2. The correct standard of measurement—the Bible (John 17:17).
3. The correct divisions of the Bible—Patriarchal, Mosaic, Christian (II Tim. 2:15).
4. The correct form or manner of worship—all things be done decently and in order (I Cor. 14:40).
5. The correct motive in worship—love for God (I Cor. 13:1-13).
6. The proper spirit—the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:9).

Man is a worshipping being. In this he differs from the beast. The object, manner and spirit of his worship determine his destiny—whether he shall spend eternity in the realms of bliss or in the chains of condemnation.

Where are the Watchmen? Do You Hear the Trumpet?
Glenn B. Ramsey

More often than not today, when a faithful preacher of the Gospel seeks to warn people of the dangers of false teaching and false teachers he is called a "brotherhood watchdog." Isn’t it interesting that the "loving" liberal religionists use the term "dog" when they attack one who faithfully holds to God's truth? I see a contradiction here. I see hypocrisy here. Do you?

The old prophet Ezekiel writes concerning his charge from God: "And he said unto me, Son of man, I send thee to the children of Israel, to a rebellious nation that hath rebelled against me: they and their fathers have transgressed against me, even unto this very day. For they are impudent children and stiffhearted. I do send thee unto them, and thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD. And they, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear, (for they are a rebellious house,) yet shall know that there hath been a prophet among them" (Ezek. 2:3-5).

Besides this, Ezekiel was told in Ezekiel 33:7: "So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me." Please note that Ezekiel was called a "watchman unto the house of Israel" by Jehovah God! This was not an unpleasant appellation. It was a wonderful charge that God gave to his prophet! At that time Israel was apostate. The prophet was to preach the message of repentance to sinful Israel. Though most of Israel did not think the situation merited having a "watchman" who would powerfully reprove and call for repentance, God did think so! And Ezekiel, the prophet, was obligated to the charge to do just that.

There must be watchmen over spiritual Israel today. Spiritual Israel, today, is the church of our Lord Jesus Christ. The men who watch over the church today must be men who heed the word of Jehovah (the Bible). They must sound the warning to an apostate church!

But, are we assuming that the church of Christ is apostate today—that each congregation is, or that each member is apostate? Certainly not. In fact, some of Israel in Ezekiel’s day were not apostate—but many were. The charge was given to bring back to God those who would listen and to allow those who so chose to judge themselves unworthy of God’s blessings and worthy of God’s condemnation. A similar situation exists today in the church of Christ. While there are many who are faithful to God’s charge and serve Him with their entire being, it is a sad fact that many are indifferent toward the whole of Christianity. These are ignorant, for the most part, of God’s Word, unwilling to submit to the authority of the Bible and, in general, so materialistic that they can only think about the pleasantries of this life. Everything that many do in the name of religion must be viewed against the pragmatic background of how this will enhance their position with the material world! Thus in the view of these religionists, if the truth does not enhance one’s position or the position of the church in the worldly community, that truth must be avoided at all costs, if not rejected!

Where are the watchmen? Who is sounding the trumpet? Ezekiel was told that a failure to sound the warning would result in the blood of all guilty ones being upon the hands of the watchman. Where are the preachers that are willing to be so "opinionated," "narrow," and "dogmatic" that they will stand and preach the Word with the reproving, rebuking and exhorting that will make the difference in the world today? (See II Timothy 4:1-4.)

Today many preachers and elders of the churches of Christ when asked what they are doing relative to many important matters of faith and doctrine that are being compromised and in some cases directly violated respond, "We do not know of such things! Why should we care about such since these things do not affect us and our congregation?" This indifference causes the watchmen to fail to watch. It keeps the trumpeters from sounding the alarm. Where are the watchmen? Do you hear the trumpet?

We Must Stay with the Truth
M. Hill

We live in a world that seems to think that truth is not all that important. Some reject Bible truth without blinking an eye. But it is still the case that the truth and only the truth makes one free from sin (John 8:32). Where the Gospel of Christ has not gone there is no salvation (Rom. 1:16-17). We must abide in the truth to be the disciples of Christ (John 8:31). To reject Bible truth is but to lose one’s soul (John 12:48).

What are the Consequences?
Holger W. Neubauer

John 21 holds an exceedingly significant and stimulating account as the Lord was misunderstood by those who knew him best. Jesus had predicted the death of Simon Peter. Peter, in hearing his own plight, inquired of that disciple "whom Jesus loved" (John 21:19) and asked "what shall this man do?" (John 21:21). The Lord responded to Peter by saying, "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" (John 21:22). This is the statement of Christ that was misunderstood. John 21:23 instructs, "Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die." This false conclusion was wrong. The conclusion was false and since the conclusion regarded the teaching of Jesus it was also false teaching. However, was this false notion a true matter of consequence? Was it a matter of fellowship? I think not. At least it wasn’t damnable until John would actually write the fourth Gospel account. The point is this: not all issues are equal. One of the ways we discover the weight of a particular issue is to consider and carefully weigh the consequences of a given issue. Did the consequences of the disciples believing this demand that we understand all those brethren were lost at this point? Obviously not. Jesus claimed that only one of the twelve was lost in his prayer of unity in John 17:12. The mere fact of believing this false teaching was not consequential and damnable false doctrine.

Before we proceed further, I wish to clarify some things lest anyone think I am softening my stance for the truth. The Bible demands that disorderly brethren be withdrawn from (II Thess. 3:6). False doctrines which redefine adultery, change worship and add unauthorized elements to the practice of pure, unadulterated Christianity must not be fellowshipped or encouraged (Eph. 5:11; II John 9-11). There is a body of objective truth that must be understood and followed for only those who love and practice the truth will be saved (I Cor. 16:22; John 8:32; II Thess. 2:10-11). Therefore, there are some issues of consequence and issues which are of no consequence.

With this point in mind, let us consider some issues that the church is facing today. Brethren have always at least practiced the principle we are discussing. There have been disagreements over the authorship of Hebrews, the dating of Revelation, whether or not deacons were established in Acts 6, the state of Cornelius prior to Acts 10, the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38, and a host of like matters. No sensible brethren have ever withdrawn from other brethren over such issues. The consequences of not believing the truth on these matters is nil. There is hardly any application for Christians to make on these matters. However, stating that a man can marry, divorce and remarry any number of times before he becomes a Christian redefines repentance and allows for someone in adultery to be accepted into the fellowship of the Lord’s church. Since no adulterer will be saved (Gal. 5:19-21) this matter becomes a matter of fellowship. Doctrines which redefine the actual state of a Christian are indeed matters of consequence. Doctrines which allow worship to be changed must not be tolerated (Jude 11).

With that said, let us now consider a thorny issue now dividing some brethren. Is the fact that one believes in the literal indwelling of the Holy Spirit a test of Christian fellowship? For fifty years brethren who believed in the representative view have fellowshipped brethren who took the indwelling position. Recently an interruption has occurred over the direct operation of the Holy Spirit on the human spirit. Now I personally disagree with the conclusions of brother Mac Deaver on this issue. However, does not the indwelling position imply that the Holy Spirit directly touches the human spirit? If the Holy Spirit is literally in an individual is this not evidence that He literally touches the human spirit? If this is a consequence of the indwelling position, then why haven’t brethren divided before now? From my study of Mac’s position I find he still denies any miraculous activity of the Holy Spirit. He believes God strengthens the believer non-miraculously. Yet, so do I. I believe God strengthens me through His providence. Mac believes He does so internally. What I avow God does through the outside world non-miraculously, brother Deaver believes takes place internally, though non-miraculously.

It seems to me that Deaver’s position still comes out at the same place of non-miraculous help. However, who does not believe in non-miraculous help for the Christian today? If this is a matter of Christian fellowship, would someone then explain to me why the indwelling position was fellowshipped to begin with? It seems to me that brethren have long disagreed on how God helps the believer because no one understands it completely. I know I do not. I believe that God answers prayers. I do not pretend to know how He answers prayers. I know that God does not an swer through miraculous intervention today. However, I know that God answers prayers. Things which brethren do not know ought to be left alone.

I wish brother Deaver would have left this issue alone. I do not agree with brother Deaver, but neither do I believe it is a matter of consequence. Brethren for years have prayed, "Give the preacher a happy recollection of those things he has prepared." Just what does that phrase actually mean? Is the prayer asking for direct help from God? Is the prayer implying a miracle? Though no miracle is implied, direct or immediate indirect help certainly is. Yet I know of no brother who ever challenged or made a test of fellowship over that prayer. Brethren, why don’t we make appearing on programs with false teachers without rebuking them a test of fellowship? Could it be that many are motivated more by politics than by the actual consequences of a doctrine or practice? Brethren, let us be consistent and make issues of things we must by weighing carefully the consequences of the position itself.

How to Spot a Fence-Straddler
Kerry Duke

Good articles have been written on identifying marks of liberal preachers. But what about brethren who try to hold hands with the faithful and with false teachers? What about those who straddle the fence, close their mouths, and fellowship both? These fence straddlers:

• warn that we should not go to the right hand or the left, but they do not specify what they mean by the "right" or the "left"
• caution audiences about extremists without defining who or what an extremist is and why he is an extremist
• are prone to say, "I agree that we should speak against compromise, but we must have the right attitude," but never get around to actually speaking against compromisers
• are hesitant to call names and criticize those who do
• have a false piety identical with disingenuous politicians, maintaining an agreeable, pleasant, cheerful disposition with false teachers and compromisers and never showing the righteous indignation of Paul (Gal. 2:11-14) or Jesus (Mark 3:5), unless they are reproved of their fence straddling
• are never on the frontline of battle, since they must first do a survey of their support base to see if they are going to be backed by others of their kind
• defend themselves by saying they have not taught anything false, knowing, however, that they have sinned by not preaching what they should have
• justify false teachers and those who fellowship them by claiming that these have been misunderstood, without defining what the misunderstanding is
• claim to disagree with certain false teachers, but will only go on record as saying they disagree with some things these men teach, not that they are false teachers
• preach at liberal churches, then defend themselves by saying they were trying to teach these people out of their error; yet their lessons are so vague that those liberal churches had no idea they were being "rebuked"
• speak on lectureships with false teachers and those who fellowship them, but are careful to make some general remark about false teaching (so gullible brethren will think they are courageous soldiers) while extolling love and unity (to keep the approval of liberals)
• refuse to face the wrongs of their own "group," since such action would be sure to result in their being cancelled from meetings and lectureships, in their articles being refused from publication, and in their being labeled extremists
• characterize those who disagree with their activities as "antis" or "new antis" without proving any real shared characteristics
• criticize those who oppose compromise because of "the way it was done," while they themselves do nothing and offer no answer to the question, "Just how should it have been done?"
• use people like Rubel Shelly and Max Lucado as whipping boys, yet are silent about other men who teach the same as these men and even fellowship men who have worked with them
• are comfortable in the midst of a group of liberals but nervous around brethren who oppose them
• preach lessons on balance in which they spend more time rebuking brethren who solidly oppose liberals and those who fellowship them than they spend correcting liberals and compromisers
• justify their silence by claiming to be balanced

Review of the Hill-Wray Debate on Capital Punishment
Kerry Duke

On October 19, 2000, brother Malcolm Hill, President of Tennessee Bible College, debated Harmon Wray, a Vanderbilt teacher who directs the Office of Restorative Justice Ministries. The subject was a timely one: capital punishment. This one-night discussion was held at the Cookeville Drama Center. People from various backgrounds were present: Christians and non-Christians, lawyers, teachers, policemen, and young and old from different walks of life. The format for the debate allowed each speaker to deliver three speeches in the first hour. Then the speakers were given the opportunity to cross-examine each other. The final part of the debate was an open forum session in which the audience was allowed to ask questions to either speaker.

Brother Malcolm Hill opened the debate with a series of charts from Bible passages which authorize the death penalty. Brother Hill pressed the point very powerfully that both the Old Testament and the New Testament authorize capital punishment. He stressed the phrase "worthy of death" in passages such as Deuteronomy 21:22, Romans 1:32, and Acts 25:11. He also argued very effectively from Romans 13:1-7 that the Bible authorizes government to use the sword—the symbol of the power to take life.

Brother Hill anticipated in an excellent way Mr. Wray’s response. He thought that Wray would ignore the arguments from Scripture on capital punishment. He did. He believed Wray would lift out of context teaching in the Sermon on the Mount such as turning the other cheek (Matt. 5:38-42), loving your enemies (Matt. 5:43-48), and the Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12). This is exactly what Wray did. He also predicted that Wray would misuse John 8:1-11 (the woman taken in adultery). Wray did just that; in fact, this was one of his major points. Brother Hill easily answered Wray’s arguments and exposed his twisting of these and other Scriptures.

Brother Hill had also anticipated that the real heart of the issue would be a difference concerning the inspiration of the Bible. The reason for this is simple. The Bible so clearly teaches that God authorized and even commanded the death penalty that one who denies the death penalty is almost forced to deny the Bible’s inspiration! Brother Hill, in the question and answer session, pressed Mr. Wray concerning his view of inspiration. Mr. Wray, a Methodist, quickly revealed his ultra-liberal, modernistic view of the Bible. He said that Moses and the Israelites, in stoning people to death in the Old Testament, were just "doing the best they could." When he was shown that God had commanded stoning, Mr. Wray held up his Bible to the audience and said, "Not everything in this book is the Word of God"! Many in the audience were shocked at this blasphemous remark, and brother Hill quickly responded, "You see, folks, here is the problem. This man does not believe the Bible."

Of course, Mr. Wray made other arguments typical of those in his camp. He denied that capital punishment has a deterrent effect. Brother Hill showed this claim preposterous in light of Ecclesiastes 8:11 and Romans 13:4. Wray argued that the death penalty is unjust because innocent people are sometimes executed. Brother Hill responded by saying that he was not arguing in favor of innocent people being executed. Besides, brother Hill argued, this reasoning would annul any form of punishment—even imprisonment, since innocent people have also been imprisoned. Then Mr. Wray also tried to evoke pity for the executed criminals, protesting that capital punishment is brutal and cruel. In making this argument he played right into brother Hill’s plan. Brother Hill turned this objection on him, pointing out that the victim and the victim’s family are the ones we should really sympathize with because of vicious acts of rape and murder.

Mr. Wray, who has participated in public discussions on the death penalty at Vanderbilt University and at David Lipscomb University, displayed rude and childish behavior in the debate. He interrupted frequently and complained about the smallest things. Of course, this attitude only hurt him in the debate. But his disrespect for order was only a natural consequence of his disrespect for authority in general, especially toward the authority of Scripture. After seeing his behavior in the debate, I was not in wonder as to why he would sympathize with criminals. And if the opponents of capital punishment can do no better than this man, who is a Vanderbilt professor, then their case is lacking indeed. A man who is right does not have to resort to rudeness in debate.

This debate is available on videotape and audiocassette. It may be ordered from Tennessee Bible College. I would urge you to purchase it. You will learn much about this subject from brother Hill’s excellent material. You will also learn much about the lengths to which people will go to deny Bible teaching. [Note: Audio tapes are $10.00 per set, video tapes are $20.00 per set; prices include shipping.]

The Evil Ear
The Tishbite

Much has been said about the evil tongue—the tongue that lies, the tongue that whispers, the tongue that slanders, the tongue that burns. We sanction and uphold every truth that has been spoken along this line.

But we wish here to speak of a companion evil—the evil ear. The evil tongue and the evil ear are closely associated. So closely associated are they that neither can operate successfully without the aid of the other. An evil tongue is an aid to the evil ear. And the evil ear is an aid to the evil tongue. Without an evil tongue, the evil ear cannot hear. And without an evil ear, the evil tongue would not speak. The two members of the body are "workers together," but not with God.

A Christian lady had moved into a Texas town and identified herself with the church in that community. No sooner was her presence known than another lady—an "old timer"—paid her a visit. When she entered the door and sat down, she began to pour scandal into the ear of the newcomer. But the newcomer interrupted: "I don’t want to hear such things. I refuse to listen!" The "old timer" closed her lips and soon departed—departed in disappointment. We heartily commend the newcomer for her courage and purity of heart. The writer thought, What if all into whose ears evil things are poured would do as this newcomer did! This would be a different world—a better and happier place in which to live! Whisperers would cease to whisper. Liars—many of them—would cease to lie. Slanderers would cease to slander. Unless he can gain a sympathetic audience, the scandal-monger will cease his nefarious work.

The tongue was made to speak. The tongue is at liberty to speak what it wants to speak; but what the tongue speaks reveals the character of the speaker. The good tongue speaks good things. The evil tongue speaks evil things.

The ear was made to hear. The ear is at liberty to hear what it wants to hear; but what the ear wants to hear reveals the character of the hearer. The good ear craves to hear good things. The evil ear craves to hear evil things.

Both the tongue and the ear should be used to the glory of God, the Father. "As ye presented your members as servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity, even so now present your members as servants to righteousness unto sanctification" (Rom. 6:19b).

“Blessed in the man that walketh not in the counsel of the wicked,
Nor standeth in the way of sinners, Nor sitteth in the seat of scoffers:
But his delight is in the law of Jehovah;
And on his law doth he meditate day and night.” (Psalm 1:1-2)