The

SUSQUEHANNA SENTINEL

---

May 2, 1999

Vol. II, No. 1

---

In This Issue

• THE CHURCH BUILDING IS SACRED
• EVOLUTION -- A THEORY, NOT A PROVEN FACT
• TWELVE APOSTLES, INCLUDING JUDAS
• GIVING IN SECRET

[Ed. Note: The following article takes an unusual approach to a controversial subject, but this editor believes it is worthy of our consideration.]

Wonder how many eyebrows the title of this article raised?  Wonder how many of our liberal brethren immediately jumped to the conclusion, saying to themselves, “I knew he believed it, but I didn’t think he would admit it!”  Wonder how many conservative brethren inwardly wonder, “What’s got into that fellow?”

Well, it’s true!  I do believe the church building is sacred.  Hold on!  Don’t go into a spasm yet.  It is not good for your blood pressure.  We need to define the word sacred.  The first definition The American College Dictionary gives for sacred is this:  “Appropriated or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose, consecrated.”

Will any deny that the church building is “appropriated or dedicated to some religious purpose”?  Was it not either purchased or built by “dedicated,” “appropriated,” “sacred” (if you please) money (the Lord’s money) to be used for “some religious purpose”?  I AM NOT claiming that stucco, mortar, and building materials PER SE are sacred, but I am contending that when purchased with the Lord’s money for the purpose of enhancing the Lord’s work, they are appropriated “to some religious purpose,” and in that sense the finished product (the church building) is sacred.  Not only is this true of the building itself, but it also follows with reference to that which is placed therein and which is a part thereof.  For example, the baptistery COULD be used for a number of things -- such as taking baths, washing feet, laundering clothes, or possibly even a dipping vat for sheep to free them from ticks, mange, mites, and other parasites.  Within its proper context, each of these items might be classified as a good work.  Suppose someone wanted to use the baptistery for such purposes, and I objected.  What do you support the retort would be?  Possibly something like this: “Do you mean to tell me that hole of water is sacred!!!”  No, it is not sacred PER SE, but it is dedicated to a sacred purpose.

As I understand it, inherent in every command of God is the authority which permits that which aids or expedites the carrying out of the command itself.  We are commanded to assemble (Heb. 10:25).  When the whole church “be come together” it must of necessity “be come together into one PLACE” (1 Cor. 14:23).  Thus, the church may buy, build, or rent a place for assembling.  But keep in mind that this is purchased with “church money” which can only be used for “church work” -- work which is spelled out in such Scriptures as Eph. 4:12-16; 1 Thess. 1:8; 1 Tim. 5:16 (please read).  Christ is “head over ALL THINGS to the church” (Eph. 1:22), and this includes “the church treasury.”  Thus “the church treasury” is used to buy or build a church building.  That which is purchased is to be used for church WORK (consecrated, dedicated to that end), or its use has been perverted.  In principle, there is no basic difference between misappropriating “the church treasury” and misappropriating that which is PURCHASED by “the church treasury.”  In the sense that the church building is provided by church money to be used for church work, it is sacred.  If not, why not?

We hear much now-a-days about “fellowship halls,” or kitchens and dining rooms being incorporated within the church building and purchased with church money.  (Without doubt any who grow up in this atmosphere will have difficulty distinguishing between “the Lord’s table” and the KITCHEN table).  If dining together is church WORK, the church may provide a dining room.  However, to the contrary, we are informed in holy writ that “the kingdom of God is not meat and drink but righteousness, and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost” (Rom. 14:117).  Lest any could not get the gist of this verse, the same apostle by inspiration declared on another occasion, “What? have ye not houses to eat and drink in?” (1 Cor. 11:22).

If brethren, individually, want to get together for a common meal, FINE!  (Invite me, too!)  However, let us not regard such as “church work,” to be enjoyed in the church building, and purchased with money which was contributed for church WORK.  Leave it where God put it -- IN THE HOME -- and don’t put it in the church building.  For you see, according to the dictionary definition of SACRED, the church building is sacred.

--Bobby Worthington via Truth Digest

If a person begins reading with the front of the New Testament and reads straight through, the first time he will run across a list of the apostles of Christ will be Matt. 10:2-4.  Matthew tells us that Jesus appointed 12 of His disciples to the apostleship and sent them out to preach.  Those 12 men were Simon Peter and his brother Andrew, James and John (sons of Zebedee), Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James (son of Alphaeus), Lebbaeus Thaddaeus, Simon (the Zealot) and Judas Iscariot.

These men were sent out to proclaim the same basic message that John the Baptist had preached: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3:2; 10:7).

Keep in mind that at that time, not one line of the New Testament had been written.  The only credentials Jesus had were the Old Testament prophecies and His own miraculous power.  The only evidence these apostles had to offer were the necessary conclusions that could be drawn from the Old Testament Scriptures -- and the power Christ gave them to prove their revelations were really from God.  Thus Jesus empowered them, "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons" (Matt. 10:8).

It is interesting to note that this power and authority were given equally to all 12 of the apostles, verse 5.  Peter had no more power or authority than Thomas.  Judas Iscariot had no less power or authority than James or John.  Jesus underscores this principle in Matt. 23:8-10, forbidding these men and other Christians from seeking to be identified with titles that elevate them above other faithful Christians.  "But you, do not be called `Rabbi;' for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren.  Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven."  Different Christians may have differing abilities, thus differing functions, but all are brethren.  None should take to himself high sounding titles that attend to elevate him above other faithful servants of God.

Another interesting fact comes to light as we consider the arguments Jesus made in such passages as Mark 3:22-27.  Some have said of Judas that he was a devil from the beginning.  The Bible does not teach that.  Judas was empowered by Jesus to cast out demons, yet Jesus plainly taught that Satan would never be involved in such work.  To do so would be to work against himself.  Judas was NOT a devil from the beginning.

The Bible does say that Jesus knew "from the beginning... who would betray Him" and that apparently at some time within the last year of His earthly ministry, Jesus said of His apostles, "One of you is a devil" (John 6:64, 70).  At any rate, Judas was indeed a part of Jesus' ministry and had the same power and authority as the other 11 apostles, until, as Luke puts it in Acts 1:25, he "by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place."

--CRJ

Charles Spurgeon and his wife, according to a story in The Chaplain magazine, would sell, but refused to give away, the eggs their chickens laid.  Even close relatives were told, "You may have them if you pay for them."  As a result some people labeled the Spurgeons greedy and grasping.

They accepted the criticisms without defending themselves.  Only after Mrs. Spurgeon died was the full story revealed: All the profits from the sale of eggs went to support two elderly widows.  Because the Spurgeons were unwilling to let their left hand know what the right hand was doing (Matt. 6:3) they endured the attacks in silence.

--Leadership Magazine