The
SUSQUEHANNA SENTINEL
August 1, 1999
Vol. II, No. 14

In This Issue

WHO’S ANTI NOW?

In the late 1940’s and early 1950’s a tremendous upheaval ripped the Lord’s church asunder.  Brethren who were determined to introduce innovations into the work and organization of the church quarantined those who were wont to have a “thus saith the Lord” for all that is done by the church.  Sides were drawn, labels applied, charges made.  A full scale vicil war ensued.  Families were divided, friends estranged, and in many areas churches were left in rubble and ruin.

I have no doubt that most of these introductions were motivated of conscience and were done out of concern for the progress and growth of the Lord’s church.

Such deviations from the divine pattern came slowly.  Benevolent societies, like orphan homes, homes for the aged, and later, homes for unwed mothers were introduced as a part of the work of the church.  Later, the “whole person” concept was promoted and the churches began projects to provide for their members not only spiritual nourishment, but social refreshments as well.  “Family Life Centers” sprang up, especially in the 60’s and 70’s, equipped with gymnasiums, exercise rooms, banquet halls, completely fitted kitchens, designed to care for the “outer man” in the same way that the auditorium was to care for the “inner man.”

Those who opposed such arrangements were branded as “anti,” or “binding brethren” and told that they could either accept these philosophies or make arrangements to worship elsewhere.  The social gospel concept became the rage.  Large mergers were made, mergers where several smaller churches banded together to form huge churches, one with the financial wherewithal to construct huge edifices and finance large and impressive programs of various sorts.

A strange vernacular followed the trend.  Because of the financial strength to do so, large “staffs” began to be assembled, headed by a “board of elders,” and supervised by a “Pulpit Minister.”  The “Minister of Education” was responsible for the highly efficient Sunday School Program, one which included special classes for singles, even divorced persons.  “Bus Ministries” sprang up all over and they were guided by “Bus Ministers,” who concocted sometimes outlandish schemes in order to induce neighborhood kids to ride the bus.  Finding the children mostly unmanageable, some churches resorted to “Children’s Church,” where the youngsters themselves were taken to the basement and allowed to conduct their own services, in some cases even electing their own elders and deacons.  Such things as “Youth Ministries” have gained reputation over the past years and it is not now uncommon for churches to have their own choirs, and entertainment groups, comprised mostly of young people and some of which make annual tours as part of their “Music Ministry.”

Lately strange cries are coming from the men who were the leading lights in the movement in the early days.  “Liberals are among us!” they say.  And they are!  But it seems strange to me that these men cannot see what they are reaping what they have sown.  Let me illustrate.

There are nine instances in the New Testament where the Lord’s church did benevolent work.  In all nine of the instances, the benevolence was extended to needy saints.  When I call that a pattern some of my friends in the more liberal churches say I am binding where the New Testament does not bind.  But now that same argument is being made by their own “liberals.”  There are also nine instances in the New Testament where music is referred to, and in all nine of these cases, the music specified is singing.  The same brethren who reject the passages regarding benevolence as being a binding pattern are having trouble making their “liberals” understand that the nine cases regarding music necessarily limit the kind of music to singing.  Their “liberals” don’t think they ought to bind those passages.  It sounds very much like a case of reaping what has been sown.

A recent bulletin from the Burke Road Church of Christ in Pasadena [Texas] is reported to have said that they did use instrumental music “but not in our regularly scheduled Sunday morning, evening and Wednesday night... because we do not want to offend the few who have a problem with that kind of praise” (quoted by Contending For the Faith, Ira Y. Rice, editor).

The only way to stop the onrush of liberalism, no matter whose “liberals” they are, is to return to the old paths, to ask for a “thus saith the Lord” for all that we do.  Otherwise, there is no end to the spread of this disease.

--Dee Bowman, via Guardian of Truth, May 15, 1986

A QUEEN WHO WOULD NOT DANCE AT THE BALL

To be selected queen at a high school basketball homecoming and to lead the group in the first dance at the royal ball is the dream of many high school girls. But not so with Olivia Wolf, a senior at Neosho (MO) High School and a member of the Hillcrest Church of Christ.

When Olivia was nominated to be queen, she had some misgivings because she knew that it was traditional for the queen to participate in the dance that followed the game. She talked with the sponsor of the activity and told him that she had religious convictions that would not allow her to participate in the dance and that if dancing were a requirement of being elected queen, she would need to refuse the nomination. The sponsor assured Olivia that if she were elected queen; she would not be required to participate in the dance in any way.

However, word soon spread that Olivia would not participate in the dance if elected queen. When a fellow student told Olivia that her parents thought it was terrible that Olivia's parents would not allow her to attend the dance, Olivia made it clear that the decision not to dance was based upon her own convictions and not upon orders form her parents.

Other students discussed whether they should vote for a queen candidate who would not be at the dance. When the ballots were cast and counted, Olivia was the successful candidate. On February 23, 1998, Olivia Wolf was crowned Neosho High School Homecoming Queen, and true to her conviction, she did not attend the dance.

Olivia is an outstanding example for others to follow--both young and old. She was willing to give up the honor of being queen if it required her to violate her convictions (and disobey God). And her experience demonstrates that it is not necessary for a person to compromise convictions and go along with the crowd in order to be well liked. She was elected queen because of the respect her peers had for her and, no doubt, one reason her peers had respect for her was the fact that she was a young lady of conviction, someone they could admire and be proud to claim as their homecoming queen.

We salute you, Olivia, for having the courage to stand by your convictions and to be an exceptional example to us all.
 --via The State College Bulletin, July 4, 1999

GREATER THAN JOHN THE BAPTIST

In Matt. 11:11, Jesus said, “Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist, but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”

Let us seek a Scriptural explanation of this perplexing statement.  First, remember that John was in a covenant relationship with God by virtue of his physical birth as a descendent of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

But John preached that the kingdom of heaven was at hand, Matt. 3:2.  And Jesus showed in John 3:3-7 that no man could enter that kingdom by virtue of a fleshly birth.  “You must be born again.”  Since Christ’s kingdom was to be a spiritual kingdom, a person can be born into that kingdom only by a spiritual birth.  Being born of woman is not enough, no matter who that woman is.  “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

John was truly a great preacher, a great servant of God, a great prophet, and more than a prophet.  But he died before the kingdom he preached about ever came into existence.  He died before the spiritual birth of which Jesus spoke became a reality.  Of those simply born of women, none had been greater than John.  But John never had the privilege of being born of water and the Spirit.

What made John great in the eyes of the Lord was his faithfulness to his duty.  He fulfilled what had been foretold of him in the writings of Isaiah and Malachi.  See Isa. 40:3; Mal. 3:1; Mal. 4:5-6.  He did the work God gave him to do, even when it cost him his life.  Yet in at least three ways, even the least in Christ’s church of kingdom is greater than John, in that they have been given even greater responsibility than he was given.  (1) John’s work was limited to territory to the land of the Jews.  For the Christian, “the field is the world” (Matt. 13:38).  (2) John’s message was for the fleshly descendants of Abraham, fleshly Israel.  Christians have a message that is meant for all nations, Mark 16:15-16.  (3) John’s work was prepatory and lasted only a few years.  Those in the kingdom of heaven have a work that will endure till the end of the world, Matt. 28:18-20.

John’s greatness before God was not counted simply on the greatness of his fleshly birth as a descendant of Abraham, for he was greater than many others who had that qualification.  He was great because of what he was in character and work.  The faithful Christian, even the least in the kingdom of God, in many ways is greater than John.  But remember, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).

--CRJ