WHAT IS THE “STANCE” OF THE CONGREGATION?

That is a good question, and one especially appropriate in our day. It has been shown, time and time again, that a person baptized can grow and develop into a knowledgeable, working, and faithful child of God due, to a great extent, to the congregation wherein he has his membership. The opposite has been shown also. In fact, it is seen in the movement that some members must make, through job transfer, etc. Leave one sound and faithful congregation, and then place membership with and serve with a congregation known for “what it will tolerate,” and that child of God will change also. The individual will accept and blend in with the congregation. It depends on the congregation’s “stance.”

Be sure, a congregation will have a name, a reputation, based on its work and its “stance.” Rome was known for having a faith spoken of throughout the world (Romans 1:8). Thessalonica was known for its sounding out the word into far distant areas (1 Thessalonians 1:8). The churches of Macedonia were known for their liberal giving (2 Corinthians 8:1-5). Sardis, once having a good name, and with some of that still lingering in the minds of men, nevertheless was told by the Lord that “thou are dead” (Revelation 3:1). We recall hearing of one person saying, “This congregation is known for its love and that congregation is known for its doctrine!” That, brethren, is tragedy? Love and doctrine are combined within the system of the Lord. Jesus combined them in his statement in John 14:15.

What, by the way, wherever this is received, is the “stance” of the congregation where you are? Is the doctrine of God sounded forth powerfully and plainly, and without modification, addition, subtraction or dilution? Is the congregation a “disciplinary” one, in that sin is rebuked, and the wayward and disobedient are seen to with dispatch? Are the Bible classes known for their emphasis on the word of God, or are the classes given to playtime and waste-time? Have the elders led the congregation in taking a stand against worldliness, sectarianism and every other form of error that will weaken and finally kill the church? Is the emphasis of the congregation’s work that of preaching and teaching rather than entertainment and social work? Are those in the congregation content to abide in God’s will, rather than always having a desire for something new and appealing that they can borrow from sectarianism? Are those who stand up to preach and teach grounded in the faith, with no disposition to traipse off into liberalism, anti-ism, Crossroadism or any other “ism”? Oh yes, a congregation has a “stance”―a name―a reputation.         

Preachers can help it be known for what it is, good or bad. Elders can do the same. So can Bible class teachers. So can the members. What is entered into the eternal record books, under our names, will be those things we did/failed to do while members of the congregations where we lived. We will partake of, support, condone, and further whatever “stance” the congregation has taken. Now, the question again: How is it where you are? Are you ready to face God concerning it?

Bill Jackson

SEARCHING FOR A NEW PREACHER

A congregation was looking for a new preacher, and at a meeting they went over their candidates to see who would be the right man for the job. Here were their reasons for the selection they made:  

1. Enoch was considered but dismissed because he just didn’t seem to die like the rest of us, and we think he couldn’t relate as well.
2. Noah was selected but dismissed because he preached 120 years with no converts.
3. Moses was considered but dismissed because he kept having problems with his congregation. They didn’t like him and neither did his preacher’s committee.
4. Samuel was considered but rejected be-cause he was not progressive enough and wanted to remain behind the times, not listening to the voice of the people.  
5. Daniel will not be picked because he rebelliously opened his window to pray to God against popular opinion. He might be too rambunctious and hotheaded.
6. Micaiah is unacceptable because he always preaches negative things about people.
7. John, the Baptizer, is too narrow minded.
8. Peter is too zealous and made some mistakes in the past.
9. Paul is a woman hater and is not married.
10. But Judas Iscariot is just right. He always talks about how he cares for the poor, is good with money and responsible. Also, he respects tradition and keeps up with the changing times. Too, he knows how to make contacts with men in the community.

By unanimous decision Judas Iscariot will be selected as our new preacher!

Author Unknown  

“CHRISTIAN” FOOTBALL!!

Quarterback Sneak – Church members quietly leaving during the invitation.

Half Time – The period between Sunday School and worship when many choose to leave.

Bench warmer – Those who DO NOT sing, pray, work, or apparently do anything but sit.

Staying in the Pocket – What happens to a lot of money that should be given to the Lord’s work.

Two minute Warning – The point at which you realize the sermon is almost over and begin to gather up your children and belongings.

Trap Play – You’re called on to pray and are asleep.

End Run – Getting out of church quickly, without speaking to any visitors or fellow members.

Flex Defense – The ability to allow absolutely nothing said during the sermon to affect your life.

Half_back Option – The decision of 50% of the congregation not to return for the evening service.

Blitz – The rush for the restaurants following the closing prayer.

Author Unknown

The Appropriateness of Warnings

When compared with his letters to the Corinthians, the Galatians, or to Timothy and Titus, Paul’s letter to the Philippians is couched in very mild terms. The Philippian Church was apparently free of such major problems as those he addressed in the aforementioned epistles. Paul was thus able to devote more of his letter to Philippi to commendation and instruction, rather than to correction. However, there is one explosion of forceful terminology in Philippians – a stringent, explicit warning:“Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the concision” (3:2). My purpose is not to provide an exposition of this verse nor identify those to whom it originally applied. Rather, I want to emphasize the fact that, even in an otherwise mildly-worded letter of encouragement, the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to caution those brethren.Warnings about spiritual dangers posed by false teachers and their doctrines are appropriate or the Bible would not be so full of them, as every Bible student knows it is. Please consider the following thoughts concerning some of the “whys” and “hows” of these necessary warnings:

There is a need to issue such warnings as a preventive measure. Preventive medicine is the best kind and usually the least painful. While no righteous person rejoices in the news of a brother, a school, or an entire congregation that has abandoned the Truth, it is better to be warned of such than to be led astray by them through ignorance and/or innocence. Appropriate and timely warnings of men gone astray and of what they are teaching (whether within or without) are a necessary preventive measure brethren can be fortified. By sounding forth warnings of the errors being circulated we can fortify many brethren and prepare them to withstand the errors. This is what Paul did in his three-fold “beware” of the foregoing passage.

Warnings are also needed to cure problems that have already developed from false teaching. Paul did not get the warnings about the evil workers to the Galatians in time to prevent grievous problems from occurring. However, he did not hesitate to sound forth the warnings of the follies and consequences of succumbing to the false teachers although they had done their dirty work. Problems caused by false doctrines can never be cured by ignoring them. The sources of the heresies, as well as the errors themselves, must be exposed by due warnings concerning them if any of those ensnared by them are to be rescued.

When warnings are given they must be in such terms that those who hear may recognize and identify the source of the danger. Otherwise, the warnings are of little worth. Paul used great plainness in the warnings of our text, identifying the “dogs” and the “evil workers” as the Judaizing teachers. He was even more specific when he warned Timothy to shun Hymenaeus and Philetus because their doctrine (that the resurrection was already past) was erroneous and cancerous and had already corrupted some (II Timothy 2:16-18). We are commanded to mark those who cause division through false doctrine so as to identify them, and warn others of them (Romans 16:17). We should always take great care not to slander or falsely accuse others, nor should anyone want to defame another person or institution unnecessarily for any reason. However, when souls are at stake we are derelict in our duty if we do not sound the warnings plainly, including calling the names of men, institutions, or congregations where necessary. May all of our warnings be issued from a broken heart full of love for the sinner, but even more for the Lord, His Word, and His people. 

There is the need to hear and act upon the warnings. We live in a strange time in church history when even the elect have come under the influence of so much human philosophy that they do not want to hear the warnings upon which the salvation of their very souls depends. Because of such shallow and perverted thinking, many brethren are critical of preachers, churches, or publications that are “issue-oriented,” as they are wont to say. Some members of the church are hypersensitive to any exposure or identity of a false teacher or his doctrine, regardless of how destructive he or it may be. Others will come right out and tell you that they do not want to hear about any “problems” in the church, as if ignorance of them would cause them to disappear. Ira Y. Rice, Jr., is right: “You just cannot warn some brethren!”

The Scriptures frequently admonish us to hear reliable spiritual warnings so as to act upon them and thereby avoid many dangers. The Lord wrote seven letters to as many churches, issuing many warnings designed to save their souls (Revelation 2-3). At the conclusion of each letter He urged, “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches” (Revelation 2:7, et al.). Clearly, He not only intended for them to hear, but to heed and act upon the warnings He issued. Some preachers take pride in not keeping up with “the issues,” as if to do so were somehow an unspiritual or vain activity. Too few elderships in my acquaintance are careful to stay abreast of the many winds of false doctrine that are blowing ever more strongly and of the men that are blowing them. Preachers and elders who are wise will stay informed themselves and will keep their respective congregations informed. Not all will listen with appreciation, but all need to hear the warnings anyway. Paul wrote the warnings in Philippians (and in many other) because he knew brethren needed to hear them for their own spiritual safety.

Dub McClish

3,000 BAPTIZED!! WHY WAS IT NEVER MENTIONED AGAIN?

“...the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls” (Acts 2:42)

We all know the church has entered the age of promotionalism – the age of drum-beating. We constantly hear of THE BEST, THE MOST, THE BIGGEST, THE GREATEST: any triumph in one congregation gets the publicity experts at work to try and top that in some other congregation. The trumpets sound when some activity is successful.

We’ve said that to call attention to the fact that this very atmosphere is foreign to the New Testament. In the text cited above, we find that about 3,000 were baptized on the day of Pentecost. The interesting thing about this is: it never was mentioned again in God’s Word! Never once! We wonder why! We have the rest of Acts, twenty one other letters, and we have seven different congregations addressed in the book of Revelation, and never once did any of the inspired writers ask, “Why can’t 3,000 more be baptized like they had on Pentecost?” It wasn’t that many years and many congregations were yet covered in the New Testament, for the events of Acts 2 take place in the very FIRST congregation. It wasn’t that no apostle knew of the events of that day, for twelve apostles were there at the time. It wasn’t that the apostles didn’t want the church to grow. It wasn’t that they weren’t interested in baptisms, for the Great Commission put them into that business (Mark 16:15-16).

Again we wonder: why wasn’t the success in Acts 2 mentioned in each and every epistle? Why didn’t the inspired writers take advantage of this whooping it up before all other congregations? Now, notice that this fits in with the low-profile given to programs and successes in the entire New Testament. While every letter deals with the importance of study, growth, increasing in godly attributes, and the need for improvement in every spiritual area, very little in the way of publicity is given to actual circumstances of sums and numbers, and certainly not in any way to “beat the drums” before the brotherhood. We do not believe the early church wanted second-rate performance, but we note they also didn’t whoop and yell about BIGGEST, GREATEST, LARGEST, TREMENDOUS...they didn’t even mention that they had 3,000 to be baptized on Pentecost! We can learn something from this in the age of the promotional, sensational, and publicity!

Bill Jackson

1929-1991

"Mostly Faithful?"

It might be that some have a mighty strange view of the word "faithful." Have you ever heard a brother described as "mostly faithful," or a congregation as "fairly faithful"? How about this-"he is pretty faithful...most of the time."

The Bible records that Moses was faithful (Numbers 12:7), as was Timothy (I Corinthians 4:17) and Tychicus (Ephesians 6:21). Jesus used the word "faithful" to describe the five and two talent men who were prepared to give account to their Lord in a parable: "His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will set thee over many things; enterthou into the joy of thy lord" (Matthew 25:23). Paul, through inspiration, set forth that "here, moreover, it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful" (I Corinthians 4:2). Research the word "faithful" and you will see that it carries the idea of those whoare "trusty...who show themselves faithful in the transaction of business, the execution of commands, or the discharge of officialduties...one who kept his plighted faith, worthy of trust...that can be relied on" (Thayer). In light of the meaning, how can one be "mostly, pretty, or fairly" faithful? Either one is, or he is not, faithful to God. (Of course we are not arguing for perfection-it must be understood that faithfulness in God's children is demanded of God (I Corinthians 4:2). This faithful condition is synonymous with walking in the light (I John 1:7) as we humbly bring our hearts and deeds into harmonywith the dictates of heaven.) What ambiguous spiritual condition isrepresented by the term "mostly faithful?" Could it be a term employed to represent a person, or a congregation, that does some, or even most of what God directs-but not all? Here are some examplesof those who fit in the category of being "mostly, fairly, or pretty" faithful:

1. The brother or sister that attends 9 out of 10 Sunday and Wednesday assemblies but forsakes one "every now and then" forTV, shopping, Boy Scouts, walk-a-thons, the Super Bowl, vacation, company at home, or because they're disgruntled with someone orsomething in the church is probably the person some have in mind when they say, "he's mostly faithful."
2. The brother who preaches the truth on the fundamental mattersof salvation, the distinctive nature of the church, and the errors of denominations, but teaches that baptism makes an adulterous marriage into a sanctified one, is labeled by some misguided brethren as "mostly faithful."
3. A congregation that demands soundness from its preachers and teachers, refuses to budge an inch in the face of new and noveldoctrines, but neglects to do what God commanded in the matter of restoring the erring and church discipline is one that many would call "mostly faithful."

The "mostly faithful" are "mostly sound" and "mostly obedient." They pick and choose when and where they will obey God. They will all, on the day of judgment, give answer for the lack of complete submission to Christ's will. "Mostly faithful" sounds "pretty good" until you realize that the "mostly faithful" will be "mostlylost." "Here, moreover, it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful" (I Corinthians 4:2).

Lynn Parker

The Right Attitude for Congregational Unity

Not only must one believe the right thing to have unity but one must also have the right attitude and disposition of heart to have unity. Having the truth is no justification for having a haughty disposition. We must have lowliness and meekness with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love.

Of Diotrephes, the beloved John wrote (III John 9–10):

I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.

The sin that John charges against Diotrephes is that he loves to have the preeminence. The word here employed by John is a very rare one and means “fond of being first.”

Years ago A.T. Robertson wrote an article on Diotrephes. He set him forth as “a church regulator,” “a short-horn deacon.” He of course, never knew all the results of the article. But one thing he did learn was that twenty-five subscribers to the paper in which the article appeared, asked that their subscription be cancelled immediately. They did this as a protest against the personal attack that they thought had been madeupon them. These twenty-five men recognized themselves in the picture of Diotrephes whom the writer had painted. The shoe fit; the hit dog howled; the guilty conscience saw its owner in such a setting.

The church does not need men like Diotrephes. We do not need men who seek to rally parties about them. We need people who will follow Jesus and preachers who point people to Jesus and not themselves. Men heard John the Baptist preach, and they followed Jesus. This was great preaching. John was a great preacher. He was no Diotrephes. He said Jesus must increase, but that he himself must decrease. He could gracefully grant the preeminence to Christ, where it belongs, in all things.

Paul did not want the brethren at Corinth divided into parties with each following their favorite preacher. That is the wrong attitude. The glory in the church is not to go to the preacher who plants or the preacher who waters, but to God who gives the increase (I Corinthians 3:1–9). We should step out of selfishness and into the service of God. With the proper attitude among brethren all of the small things vanish away.

J. Noel Meredith