The worth of a doctrine can often be judged by observing its application in human thought and experience. No doctrine, no matter how attractive or plausible it may seem, is valuable if the consistent application of its principles results in the degradation and dissipation of humanity. After 100 years we can look at the fruits of evolution and see that by this principle it stands condemned.

Prof Jacques Barzun of Columbia University has pointed out the profound significance of the year 1859. In that year was sown the seed that has brought forth a terrible harvest. In that year Darwin published his Origin of the Species, Karl Marx published his Critique of Political Economy and Wagner published “Tristan and Isolde.” Darwin’s book destroyed man’s faith in God, Marx’s book destroyed man’s faith in the rights of private property, and Wagner’s opera gave the cultural background that was indispensable to make these revolutionary ideas both popular and palatable. (Evolution’ published by International Christian Crusade, Ontario, Canada, 14th edition, page 78).

What then are the fruits of evolution?

1. It tends to destroy faith in the Bible, Jesus and God. One cannot believe the Bible and what the Bible says of God and Christ and at the same time believe the theory of evolution. They are antithetical. Some individuals try to harmonize evolution and Christianity, but it is an impossible task.After William Jennings Bryan delivered a defense of the Biblical account of creation in the Wesley Memorial church in Atlanta about forty years ago, he talked with some students and others. A student from Emory University said to him, “Mr. Bryan, I can reconcile the Bible with the theory of evolution.” Mr. Bryan replied, “You have more sense than Darwin; he couldn’t.” The student then said, “All you have to do is to discard the first two chapters of Genesis.” Mr. Bryan, with eyes flashing, replied, “That would not be reconciliation; it would be mutilation.”

There is no place in the evolutionary theory for sin, the soul, salvation and a Savior.

2. It fosters militarism and imperils world peace. Darwin’s original thesis and the 20 or so different evolutionary theories of today that come from it teach the “survival of the fittest.” Progress comes through the killing off of the weak and the emergence of the stronger species. In the words of Prof. S. J. Holmes of the University of California: “Darwinism, consistently applied, w o u I d measure goodness in terms of survival value.”

Might makes right. The weak are destined to die. The stronger must conquer the weaker. This concept is not original. It is the old law of the jungle. It is a devolution to barbarism. But this is the consistent application of the evolutionary theory. The subtitle to Darwin’s book is: “The preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.”

There were wars before the evolutionary theory became popular. But the theory and its underlying philosophy gave plausibility to the insanity of war. Evolution is the cornerstone of the modern philosophy of militarism. Exponents claim that from an evolutionary standpoint war is both good and necessary, that it is the application of the natural law and is biologically normal and right to crush the weaker people of the earth.

Hitler drank deeply of this philosophy and it became the foundation for Nazism and his “super-race” concept. Bethman Von Hollweg saturnically justified the invasion of Belgium on the principle that the big animal eats the little one and the Belgian turtle was in the way of the German Dinosaur. Hitler said, “The whole of nature is a continuous struggle between strength and weakness, an eternal victory of the strong over the weak.”

George Bernard Shaw said, “Darwinism, a mechanical doctrine, destroyed religion, but gave us nothing in its place. It gave an air of science to moral and political opportunism and to struggle-for-life militarism.”

Communism is based upon dialectical materialism, whose foundation is evolution. Evolution is an inherent part of communism. Destroy this atheistic facet of communism and you lay the ax at the root of the tree of communist philosophy. If the existence of a Supreme Being and the moral accountability to the same be accepted, the unquestioned and undeviating loyalty to the Party is disturbed. The “end justifies the means” philosophy with its ruthlessness and violence suffers when the communist realizes there is a higher power to which man must give an account. This the party cannot tolerate in its conspiratorial conquest of the world.

3. It encourages atheism. Atheism is the logical results of evolution in the spiritual realm. “Evolution is atheism in thought and anarchy in conduct.”

Charles Smith, former president of the American Association for the advancement of Atheism, said, “Evolution is atheism.” Woolsey Teller, former vice-president of the same organization, has stated, “the God idea cannot be reconciled without knowledge of evolution.”

The influence of evolution can be illustrated in the life of Charles Darwin. Before embarking on his career as a naturalist he studied for the ministry for three years at Cambridge. At the time of his voyage on the Beagle, collecting his materials from which comes his book, he himself said he was “quite orthodox.” Nearly fifty years later, however, he wrote, “for myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation” (Evolution, p. 82).

4. It encourages modernism. Modernism has developed due to the lack of faith in the truthfulness of the Bible and an obsession to worship at the altar of scientific theory. Every human philosophy that discredits the Bible is faced with the problem of explaining the origin of life. Evolution is their answer. Modernism is no different. Supernatural religion is set aside for evolutionary theory.

5. It injures public morals. It tends to break down all law, moral and spiritual, and to give free course to the worst passions of men, all under the guise of doing that that is normal and natural.

On May 21, 1924, in Chicago, Nathan F. Leopold, nineteen-year-old son of a wealthy box manufacturer, and Richard A. Loeb, eighteen year old son of the vice-president of Sears, Roebuck and Co., murdered Robert Franks, fourteen. Leopold was a graduate of the University of Chicago and Loeb of the University-of Michigan.

At their trial the following August these young men were defended by the celebrated criminal lawyer, Clarence Darrow. His eloquence is credited with saving their lives and his defense speech is considered one of the greatest in American judicial history.

His defense was (1) they were insane, of diseased mind, ( 2) they were victims of hereditary taint, (3) they were victims of evolutionary teaching. Below are quotations from Darrow’s closing argument (Famous Jury Speeches, pp. 992-1089).

“I know that one of two things happened to Richard Loeb; that this terrible crime was inherent in his organism, and came from some ancestor, or that it came through his education and his training after he was born.” ( 1050).

“I do not know what remote ancestors may have sent down the seed that corrupted him, and I do not know through how many ancestors it may have passed until it reached Dickie Loeb.

“All I know is that it is true, and there is not a biologist in the world who will not say that I am right.” (1050).

“If there is responsibility anywhere, it is back of him; somewhere in the infinite number of his ancestors, or in his surroundings, or in both. And I submit, your Honor that under every principle of natural justice, under every principle of conscience, of right, and of law, he should not be made responsible for the acts of someone else.” (1051).

Of Nathan Leopold, Darrow points out that he became enamoured of the philosopher, Nietzsche. Continuing, Darrow says:

“He wrote one book, ‘Beyond Good and Evil’ which was a criticism of all moral codes as the world understands them; a treatise holding that the intelligent man is beyond good and evil; that the laws for good and the laws for evil do not apply to those who approach the superman.” (1053).

Darrow continues and quotes Nietzsche:

” ‘The morality of the master class is irritating to the taste of the present day because of its fundamental principle that a man has obligation only to his equals; that he may act to all of lower rank and to all that are foreign, as he pleases.’

“In other words, man has no obligations; he may do with all other men and all other boys, and all society, as he pleases–the superman was a creation of Nietzsche, but it has permeated every college and university in the civilized world.” (1055).

“If this boy is to blame for this, where did he get it? Is there any blame attached because somebody took Nietzsche’s philosophy and fashioned his life on it? And there is no question in this case but what it is true. The university would be more to blame than he is. The scholars of the world would be more to blame than he is. The publishers of the world–and Nietzsche’s books are published by one of the biggest publishers in the world–are more to blame than he. Your Honor, it is hardly fair to hang a nineteen-year-old boy for the philosophy that he was taught at the university.” (1059).

Leopold, with his obsession of the superhuman, repeatedly said that Loeb was his idea of the superhuman. In a letter Leopold wrote:

“It may not have occurred to you why a mere mistake in judgment on your part should be treated as a crime when on the part of another it should not be so considered. Here are the reasons. In formulating a superman he is, on account of certain superior qualities inherent in him, exempted from ordinary laws that govern ordinary men. He is not liable for anything he may do . . .”(1067).

In 1925 Darrow defended John Thomas Scopes in the Dayton, Tenn. trial. State law forbade the teaching of the evolutionary theory. Scopes, the biology teacher at Rhea high school in Dayton, taught the evolutionary hypothesis. I have often wondered what Darrow’s feelings were in defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools after having defended Leopold’s crime on the grounds that he had been taught the evolutionary theory in the public schools.

6. It encourages racial prejudice. The White Citizens Council, Greenwood, Miss., distributes literature saturated with the evolutionary “survival of the fittest” and white supremacy justified by the law of the jungle.

One pamphlet is a reprint of a 1907 Saturday Evening Post article by Harris Dickson. Here are some quotes from the article:

“The negro should never have been trusted with the ballot. He is different from the white man. He is congenitally unqualified to exercise the most responsible duty of citizenship. He is physically, mentally, morally racially and eternally the white man’s inferior. There is nothing in the history of his race, nothing in his individual character, nothing in his achievements of the past or his promise for the future that entitles him to stand side by side with the white man at the ballot box.

“The inestimable privilege was thrust upon the Negro snatching him out of his twenty thousand barbaric years and placing him shoulder to shoulder with the heir of all the ages.”

“I maintain that so long as the African and Caucasian races coexist in the same society, the subordination of the African is its normal, necessary and proper condition, and that such subordination is the condition best calculated to promote the highest interest and the greatest happiness of both races, and, consequently, of the whole society–that the white is the supenor and the black the inferior, and that subordination, with or without law, will be the status of the African in this mixed society. Therefore, it is to the interest of both, and especially of the black race, that this status should be fixed, controlled and protected by law.”

“From the beginning of time the white races have never bowed to a superior, and have rarely brooked an equal. They have tolerated other peoples so long as those other peoples did not come into direct competition and conflict with them–so long as other races took nothing from the white man which the white man desired for himself. For instance, the white man needed the Indian’s land–and took it. The Indian resisted– and disappeared.”

Does this sound like something from Adolph Hitler? Many more quotations could be offered from various pamphlets; this is the warp and woof of the “justification” of racial discrimination put out by this organization.

The conclusion of the whole matter: Evolution stands indicted by its own corrupting influence.

Truth Magazine: IX, 2, pp. 2-4
November 1964

Format for Printing

Format for Printing

Image via Wikipedia

Does the name Joseph Merrick sound familiar to you? How about the name Kerri Strug? You might not remember Joseph by his name but you have probably heard of the story of the Elephant Man because of the very rare but painful and disfiguring disease which he endured with great character and humility. Kerri was also not well known before her performance at the 1996 Olympics. However if you have ever seen the vault she performed on an injured ankle you will not likely ever forget it. She was an inspiration for many young athletes because her victory was only made sweeter by the hardship she endured.

How do we see suffering? Do we see it as a curse or as a gift? Remember that God’s ways are not man’s ways (Jer10:23). That concept is reinforced over and over again. What seems to man to be a bad thing, senseless pain, suffering of the innocent, is repeatedly used to accomplish good.

Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver;
I have tested you in the furnace of affliction.
For My own sake, for My own sake, I will do it;
For how should My name be profaned?
And I will not give My glory to another. Isa. 48:10

Suffering will never be easy or enjoyable. By its very nature is that which we hate and would not choose to endure. Yet in the midst of suffering we have the power to place it in context. No matter what we are suffering, it has limits. How could the young Joseph see his suffering would lead to the preservation of so many lives? How could Job see those things which he was doing without (riches,family,health) were only temporary? Job was blessed by God with much more than he ever had because he remained faithful despite what he suffered.

My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing. James 1:2-4

I look at this verse what I notice is the word joy. He didn’t say to be despondent or depressed, nor did he say to simply tolerate temptation. He used the word joy to communicate that we are to have the opposite reaction of most of the world to trials. The difficulty of this task cannot be understated, however, we are encouraged to do it therefore it must be possible.How will we choose to see our suffering? Will we choose to view it as most men do? Will we open ourselves to the possibility that good can come from it whether we see it or not?

Format for Printing

by Allan Turner

This special issue on secular humanism proves, if nothing else, that those who have been speaking and writing on this subject no longer sit as “lonely birds on the roof.” I am happy to share with you the fruit of my study of this subject. It is inevitable that any study of secular humanism would cause us to think about the influence it may be having on our government. I think you may find that it has had a much stronger influence than you had suspected.

When we think of the federal government, we normally think of a vast bureaucracy; so vast, in fact, that it is almost beyond comprehension. But, in reality, we are only talking about 537 elected and 9 appointed men and women. Surprised? Well, let’s count them: I president, I vice president, 100 senators, 435 representatives, and 9 Supreme Court justices. As ours is a democratic republic, these 546 people are the government; the vast bureaucracy, in theory, simply supports these 546 people in doing whatever it is government is supposed to do.

Traditionally, government (at least our government) has been thought to exist for the “common good” of the citizenry. Obviously, if government is to provide for the common good of the people, then it must have an opinion as to the substance of that common good. As secular humanism has become quite pervasive in our society, we should expect to see conflicts arising in government as it attempts to provide for the common good of a people who are sharply divided between a biblically based world view and a secular humanist world view. When we use the term “world view,” we are speaking of the grid through which we view the world. Naturally, there will be a sharp contrast between these two world views when the government attempts to legislate morality (i.e., homosexuality, abortion, marriage, divorce, capital punishment, pornography, infanticide, euthanasia, etc.)

It is my opinion that the conflict between these two world views is the most fundamental and decisive issue of our time. The issue is one quite common to New Testament Christians, who seek after the New Testament order, for it is one of authority: Is God still ruling in both the religious and secular affairs of man, or is man totally autonomous, answerable only to himself and the institutions he has created? These two alternatives underlie most of the major and minor conflicts of our day. Contrary to what some may think, secular humanism is not the “brand name of some organizationally identifiable movement. It is, rather, an ‘ideology’, i.e., an all-comprising, all-permeating world view, ethos and attitude. It is the antithesis to religion” (Klaus Bockmuehl, “Secularism and Theology”, Crux Magazine, June, 1983, p. 7).

Let us get, then, to the subject at hand. The first and last paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence speak of God. U.S. Supreme Court Justice, William O. Douglas, as recently as 1952, said: “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being” (Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306). 1 believe it is beyond dispute that our legal system in America has traditionally reflected biblically based principles. But this viewpoint is quickly changing. So quickly is the change occurring, that some have insisted that the “anti-God religion of Secular Humanism” is already the favored religion of the state (Claire Chambers, The Siecus Circle, Statement appearing on the flyleaf by Charles Rice, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School).

Thinking of secular humanism as the official religion of this nation may not be as far-fetched as it may, at first, seem. In 1961 in the case of Torcaso v. Watkins, Justice Hugo L. Black observed: “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.” In this case the Court declared itself neutral of any religious influence when it said that “neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs. “This newly found “neutrality,” or tightrope act, has forced the Court to pretend that the existing legal system is not subject to any religious influence.

In declaring themselves free from any religious influence, they have opted for the self-autonomous religion of secular humanism, and have discarded any notion of a Law above the law. On its face, this is a clear violation of The First Amendment, which prohibits the establishment of a state favored religion, if “religion” in the amendment means “ideological system,” as the secular humanists argue it does. Of course, the use of the term “religion” in the First Amendment has been explained by those who framed it as a prohibition against a national religion or the placing of any one religious sect, denomination, or tradition into a preferred legal status. And as recently as 1961 it was understood by the Court that way. This was articulated by Justice J. Frankfurter, who said “the immediate object of the First Amendment’s prohibition was the established church as it had been known in England and in most of the Colonies” [emphasis added] (McGowen v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 465). It is interesting to note that in the 1963 Schempp case, which outlawed the reading of the Bible, or its use as a religious document, in the public schools, the Court said that the use of the term “under God” could continue to be used in the schools as long as everyone understood that it actually has no “religious purpose or meaning.” The term “under God” in the pledge of allegiance, according to Justice William Brennan, “may merely recognize the historical fact that our Nation was believed to have been founded ‘under God… [emphasis added] (School District of Abington Township, Pa. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 303-04). At the beginning of this rather long paragraph we mentioned that the founding fathers recognized this nation’s dependence upon God. We have now arrived at a point in this nation’s existence where its historical founding “under God” is considered by the United States Supreme, Court as nothing more than an antiquated shibboleth to appease the masses.

The legislative branch of our government has been charged with policy making, the executive branch has been charged with carrying out those policies, and the judicial branch as been charged with making sure the other two branches do not go beyond the Constitution in creating and implementing those policies. Nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the authority to make policy, but this has been occurring now for a generation (ever since Earl Warren became Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court). Instead of a democratic republic, for all practical purposes, we are a people ruled by judicial fiat. What some who sit on the Supreme Court seem to think is their right to carry on their own “Constitutional Convention,” we, the people, recognize as nothing less than tyranny.

To read the rest…Humanism And The Government

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 14, pp. 428-430
July 19, 1984

Format for Printing

There were times when discipline was required. Switches were the order of the day; she could use one better than most mothers. On a bare back, her switches seemed almost lethal. Psychologists and psychiatrists today, with all their psycho-babble, tell us how damaging discipline is for kids. However, I’ve now seen several generations of children who have been raised on their philosophy, and I prefer Mom’s child-raising philosophy more than theirs. I believe her approach worked better and I think my brothers and sisters share that same view. None of us was permanently damaged by her discipline.

…Mom’s love for the Lord and the church must also be remembered. She did something special which certainly none of us understood at the time. You see, until Cecil, and then Don, started preaching, Dad didn’t go to worship. She always took us to every worship . . . alone! I do not believe there was a family in the church more faithful than ours. During the critical, formative years of her children, she was determined they would know the Lord. That was the principle work of Mom. Dad was off somewhere else at worship time. He was usually working on one of his trucks all day, getting ready for Monday morning and his logging work.

The preaching of Mom’s sons has been far-reaching. In those days, she could never have imagined the impact her family would have on the church of the 20th and 21st centuries. From this small town of about 1000-1200 people, her boys have gone forth. We have preached in most parts of Texas, into many different places in Florida, Kentucky, Kansas, Tennessee, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Georgia, Alabama, California, Illinois, Michigan, Hawaii, Alaska, and Wisconsin. Probably other states as well. We have preached in Eastern and Western Canada, in the Philippines, in Israel, Germany, and in Greece. We have had opportunity to teach many more through religious journals we have edited, articles we have written for publication, church bulletins we have edited, radio teaching we have done, published debates we have conducted, and books and tracts we have written. Who would ever have dreamed that a Mother living in a small East Texas town might touch the lives of so many, in such distant places, as Mom did through her sons? She put us in a place to be taught the Truth, and was determined we would know how important it is to teach and defend it. It is a tribute to Mom, for without her direction, such would never have happened.

Eulogy for Mom

Format for Printing

“Now My soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save Me from this hour’? But for this purpose I came to this hour. Father, glorify Your name.” Then a voice came from heaven, saying, “I have both glorified it and will glorify it again.” – John 13:27,28

Much has been written about the physical suffering of Jesus. I would like to focus on the emotional aspects of his suffering so that we might understand and hopefully help to comfort those who are dealing with these types of trials.

The context of John chapter 12 has Jesus in Jerusalem just after the raising of Lazarus. I cannot help but believe the period of grief that Jesus experienced with the family of Lazarus had drained Him emotionally. It will not be long until Jesus will be led to the cross to be crucified. We have all faced the dread of knowing we were scheduled or were planning to do something we really did not want to endure. Maybe we had a surgery scheduled or the completion of funeral arrangements for a loved one. The emotional drain and anguish is many times worse than the endurance of the task itself. How much more so for someone who knows they will have to endure extreme pain and eventual death on a Roman cross?

After his entry to Jerusalem, the weight of the sufferings are troubling him. He ask this rhetorical question ‘what shall I say? Father save me from this hour’ in verse 27 knowing the answer. The natural human aversion to suffering, the concern over his apostles and all his disciples must have been weighing heavily on his mind. He shows by His example, the purpose of this life is not the avoidance of suffering. His next statement in verse 28 intimates the purpose of suffering, glorifying the name of the Father. He clearly had the power to deliver himself from the hands of the Jews and the Romans. How would that have glorified the father? Avoiding suffering would only have have served to glorify himself.

Rather than requesting that he be saved from this hour (v. 27), the Lord’s petition is that the Father’s name may be glorified. This was Paul’s later summary of Jesus’ passion, i.e., that it was, “to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:6-11).

While researching this text, I came across an article by Harry Osborne entitled “Learning Obedience from Suffering”. I believe he does an excellent job in getting to the heart of this passage. Here is a paragraph from that article:

In his incarnation, Jesus was “made in the likeness of men” and “found in fashion as a man” (Phil. 2:6-7). As a man, he did not desire all of the horrors associated with his death on the cross. However, obedience drove him to subject himself to the will of the Father. The essence of his statement is not “Father, save me from this hour,” but “Father, glorify your name.” His obedience was put to the ultimate test and perfectly met it. Therefore, he becomes our example as we are tempted to forsake the will of God in times of hardship, but persevere in obedience despite the consequences.

It is hard to imagine how difficult it would have been to endure what Jesus did in the garden of Gethsemane. The emotional suffering at its peak, already taking a heavy toll on him physically. Sometimes physical pain is much easier to endure than the emotional. At the conclusion of all things, suffering is suffering. The apostle Paul talks about his persecution right alongside of his shipwrecks and perils which had nothing to do with his opposition. No matter the source of our afflictions of this world, the message of hope offered to us remains the source of any comfort which can be had in times of affliction and suffering. – tdk Apr. 2012

Format for Printing

The book of Acts demonstrates that the gospel was preached to those who were already Christians, as well as to those who were not, by preachers who traveled to various places. The Scriptures describe various preachers traveling and preaching for various congregations for short periods of time in order to reach the lost and build up the saved with the gospel of Christ (Acts 14:21-22; 15:36, 40-41; 20:6-7). An incredible amount of good was accomplished through the efforts of these churches and preachers as the saving message was spread. Many local churches and preachers engage in something similar today. We commonly refer to these modern efforts as “gospel meetings.” It seems that many brethren have grown weary of “gospel meetings.” Meetings are becoming shorter in length, less frequent in number, and are not as well attended as they used to be. Furthermore, for those that have not abandoned the practice of having gospel meetings altogether, there exists the danger of continuing to have meetings each year simply out of habit. In addition to these concerns, the question is sometimes raised as to whether or not there is really any value in having gospel meetings anymore. For these reasons, we would do well to give some much needed consideration to the subject of gospel meetings.

What is the value of a gospel meeting?

1. The value of reaching the lost with the gospel of Christ. Jesus is the only hope of salvation for the sinner (John 14:6; 8:24). In fact, the apostle Paul states that the Lord will one day come “in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thess. 1:8). In order for a lost sinner to obey the gospel he must first hear the gospel. Many of our religious friends regularly attend religious groups in which they hear the opinions and doctrines of men, rather than the gospel. They may never visit the services of a church that is serving as “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) in their community on a Sunday morning due to obligations already in place. But they may be willing to come visit one of our services during a gospel meeting, since the gospel meeting presents opportunities in addition to our normal meeting times on Sunday. There are people all around us who are in dire need of hearing the gospel and, contrary to what many seem to believe, lost sinners do still attend gospel meetings when invited by members of the church. A gospel meeting is used as a valuable tool for evangelism when the lost are invited to hear the good news.

2. The value of spending more time together worshiping God. It is obvious that the early disciples of Christ spent as much time as possible together praising the Lord and studying His word (Acts 2:42, 46-47). Gospel meetings provide an opportunity to take time out of our busy schedules in order to spend some more time worshiping God and studying His word together. Are you interested in doing that? Gospel meetings provide those who have a sincere interest in spiritual things with a great opportunity to meet together more often in order to glorify God. Time spent stirring one another up to “love and good works” is valuable time (Heb. 10:24).

3. The value of edifying the members of the church. One of the primary responsibilities of each local church is to edify, or build up its members (Eph. 4:14-16; cf. 1 Cor. 14:26). Each local church of Christ is responsible for seeing to it that each of its members is built up and strengthened spiritually. Edification takes place when we worship together in spirit and truth and study God’s word together. Gospel meetings provide a great opportunity for edification as the members of the church gather each night to sing, pray, and listen to God’s word being taught. Those who are bored with gospel meetings, or who ignore gospel meetings are sure to discourage their brothers and sisters in Christ. Any time spent in the interest of edifying the saints is time that is spent in a valuable pursuit.

4. The value of learning and growing. The apostle Peter charges God’s people with the responsibility to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 3:18). A gospel meeting provides a great opportunity for the local church to hear a faithful man preach the word of God. While we may have the opportunity to hear eight or ten sermons in an average month, a gospel meeting may present the opportunity to hear that many lessons over the course of only one week. Do not forget that “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). What value can be placed upon an opportunity to learn and grow by hearing the word of God proclaimed?

5. The value of putting spiritual things ahead of worldly matters. Jesus expects those who follow Him to seek the kingdom of God first in life (Matt. 6:33). A gospel meeting provides a unique opportunity to focus on spiritual matters and to put the kingdom of God ahead of other things. In many ways, a gospel meeting also exposes one’s priorities in life. We will prepare for social occasions, weddings, fun events, and holidays and circle them on our calendars so that we will be sure to set time aside for them even if it means booking time off of work. How many of us place the same emphasis on setting time aside to attend a gospel meeting? There is inestimable value in laying aside worldly matters in order to focus on things of eternal importance.

Conclusion

Gospel meetings are certainly not the only method by which the local church may seek to reach the lost and edify the saved. But at the same time, gospel meetings can be used as a very effective tool in accomplishing the Lord’s work once we recognize the potential value of such concentrated efforts to “proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Pet. 2:9). Don’t give up on gospel meetings!

David Dann

2108 Amherst Dr.

Lewisville, TX

Format for Printing

The book of Hebrews clearly shows the correlation between suffering and the learning of obedience. The writer declares that Christ was perfected as the author of salvation through sufferings (Heb. 2:10) and that he “learned obedience by the things which he suffered” (Heb. 5:9). The writer exhorts the readers to follow Jesus’ example in chapter 12. He urges them to be perfected in righteousness as they face growing affliction (Heb. 12:1-13).

While the experience of human suffering is universal, the lessons learned from it are not. Whether young or old, rich or poor, righteous or wicked, all of us experience suffering. The reaction we have to such experiences determines whether or not we learn obedience through the things suffered. The same episode may result in a determination furthering obedience or a discouragement furthering rejection of God’s will. The difference in reactions is not brought about by dissimilar events, but by dissimilar hearts.

The Bible is filled with the stories of suffering on the part of people of all ages. We would do well to emulate those who handled adversity properly. The example which stands out above all others is that upon which the Hebrew writer bases his appeal – Jesus.

The Example of Jesus

In the process of defending the necessity of Jesus’ coming in the flesh, the Hebrew writer argues the place of Jesus as the author of salvation ‘upon the basis of his completion of sufferings which secured that salvation (Heb. 2:9-18). In this suffering which culminated in Christ’s death, he was made like his brethren in all things (v. 17). He was tempted to give up and quit as any of us would be in the face of such terrible physical, mental and even spiritual suffering (v. 18). Through it all, however, he never let such a temptation become his determination.

Jesus speaks of this agony in his last public discourse recorded in the gospel of John. He says, “Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say’? ‘Father, save me from this hour?’ But for this purpose I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name” (Jn. 12:27-28a, NKJV). In his incarnation, Jesus was “made in the likeness of men” and “found in fashion as a man” (Phil. 2:6-7). As a man, he did not desire all of the horrors associated with his death on the cross. However, obedience drove him to subject himself to the will of the Father. The essence of his statement is not “Father, save me from this hour,” but “Father, glorify your name.” His obedience was put to the ultimate test and perfectly met it. Therefore, he becomes our example as we are tempted to forsake the will of God in times of hardship, but persevere in obedience despite the consequences.

The Hebrew writer continues this thought in the fifth chapter. Here, he draws upon the image of Jesus at Gethsemane so vividly pictured in the Gospels (Matt. 26:36-44; Mk. 14:32-39; Lk. 22:39-46). All of the accounts paint a clear picture of Jesus suffering intense, mental agony over the events soon to transpire. In the midst of such suffering, he goes to the only source of real help, the Father, in prayer. Matthew’s account shows Jesus reaching the same resolution as he did on the previous occasion recorded in John 12. In the first prayer at Gethsemane, Jesus says, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt” (Matt. 26:39). The emphasis of this first prayer is on his desire to be spared the execrable death on the cross. However, the determination to obey despite the results is seen in the account of the second prayer, “My Father, if this cannot pass away, except I drink it, thy will be done” (Matt. 26:42). Barmby expresses it this way:

His human will did not oppose itself to the Divine will: it conformed itself in the end entirely to it; but this according to the necessary conditions of humanity, through the power of prayer. Had it not been so with him, Ins participation in human nature would have been incomplete; he would not have been such as to be “touched with the feelings of our infirmities, being in all points tempted like as we are;” nor would he have stood forth forever as the great Example to mankind (Pulpit Com., Exposition of Heb. 5:7-8, p. 138).

The test of true obedience is not found in the execution of desirable tasks, but of dreaded tasks from which one longs for escape. Such a longing existed in Jesus regarding all that accompanied the preparation for and endurance of Calvary, but he submitted to every humiliating and excruciating moment in obedience. Indeed, the whole event demands the conclusion reached by the Hebrew writer, “Though he was a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered” (Heb. 5:8).

Other Examples

One of the most notable examples of obedience amidst suffering is found in Job. In Job 1:9-11, Satan asserts that Job only serves God because of the blessings given to Job. Satan claims Job would renounce God if those blessings ended. The book goes on to detail Job’s loss of material wealth, family, health, friends, and other blessings. Through it all, Job refuses to renounce God. James cites Job as an example of one who patiently endured suffering (Jas. 5: 10-11). Thus, the lesson should be learned that we can suffer the loss of all things, yet obey God, if we learn patience from that suffering.

The thorn in the flesh of the apostle Paul was a teacher of obedience in a sense. Lest he glory in himself as the one through whom God gave great revelations, the affliction served as a reminder that the greatness was in God who gave the revelation, not Paul who was merely a messenger (2 Cor. 12:7-10). Therefore, the suffering endured was a constant reminder of the greatness of God and his message in comparison to Paul’s frailty. When one truly reflects upon the majesty of God and his Word, obedience is induced.

The Hebrew writer exhorts the readers not to be “of them that shrink back unto perdition, but of them that have faith unto the saving of the soul” (Heb. 10:39). He then calls to their minds numerous examples of Old Testament characters who obeyed God as faith demands. Each one did so under some sort of trial or hardship. Not only did they learn obedience through the things they suffered, but we are taught by their examples as to the demands of an obedient faith.

The book of 2 Timothy is written as Paul experiences various forms of suffering. He suffered from the rejection of his friends and brethren (2 Tim. 1:15; 4:16). He suffered from the fact that false teachers were working with their malignant leaven (2 Tim. 2:16-18). He suffered from the impending apostasy he saw coming upon the cause of Christ (2 Tim. 3:1-9; 4:34). He suffered from evil done to him by others (2 Tim. 4:14). He also suffered from his imprisonment and imminent execution (2 Tim. 4:6). Throughout the book, he urges Timothy to do as he is doing – take hold of the sure things. He repeatedly appeals to the truth of the Gospel and urges uncompromising loyalty to it. The suffering Paul was experiencing brought more clearly into focus that which really mattered. Obedience was both learned and taught.

Application To Us

We must recognize the benefit which suffering can bring and learn obedience from it. God has declared that all who would live godly will suffer (2 Tim. 3:12). Peter notes that we should not see suffering as unusual, but as a fellowship with Christ’s suffering. He adds this is not true of suffering which comes from wrong-doing, but of suffering which stems from being a Christian (1 Pet. 4:12-16). What we learn from the suffering is up to us.

When we experience rejection because of a stand which is based upon the truth of God, will we compromise the truth or learn obedience? We often talk to teenagers about this pressure, but it works on all of us regardless of age. Business men have succumbed to joining in the use of alcohol and sordid entertainment to escape the ridicule and rejection of or’ their associates. I have seen preachers turn their back on the truth and one who was upholding it because of the pressure. No one is immune from Satan’s pull in this area.

I have often reflected on the faith of numerous older preachers who in the institutional division were told to cease preaching the truth. When they obeyed God rather than man, many were thrown out of homes and cut off without a dime to support their families. Most preachers in my age group have not had to suffer that trauma. It would be easy to rationalize our needs as being so great that “small” compromises would be justified. Or we could say that those who were being fired really were not making a different stand, but just had a “bad approach.” Such reasoning and justifying has provided the liberal churches with their “preachers.” We must watch out lest this history be repeated.

As situations in this life bring us sorrow and pain, let us look to the examples of those who endured suffering in faith ‘ The temptation is for us to become so discouraged that service to our Lord is forsaken. Such action would fail to learn the lesson of obedience. We must let the experience of suffering be an occasion to think about that which is solid and secure. Material goods, health, relationships, events and every other part of this life will cease one day and suffering will almost certainly result. Each time suffering comes, it provides a chance for us to learn obedience by the things which are suffered. We must press on unto perfection, laying up treasure in heaven wherein is no more death, mourning, crying or pain – where every tear shall be wiped from our eyes forever and all will be made new.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 17, pp. 539-540
September 1, 1988

Format for Printing

Format for Printing

Joe Griffin

of Fort Scott, KS

Sunday, 9:30 AM and 3:00 PM

Mon-Fri at 7:30 PM

Please come join us!

Format for Printing