____________________________________________________ THE GOSPEL OBSERVER "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations...teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:19,20). ____________________________________________________ August 25, 2002 ____________________________________________________ Your Preaching Is Offensive To Me (Part 2 of 2) by Tom Roberts But What is Offensive Today? Was Elijah offensive on Mt. Carmel when he taunted the prophets of Baal? Was Isaiah offensive when he jabbed the makers of idols with the irony of cutting down a tree and making an idol with part of it while cooking their food with another part? Was Nehemiah offensive when he "contended with them and cursed them, struck some of them and pulled out their hair" (13:25)? Was John the Baptist offensive when he delivered public rebuke to Herod and Herodias for their adulterous marriage? Was Paul offensive when he said of the Circumcision: "I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off!" (Gal. 5:12). These kinds of examples can be multiplied throughout the scriptures. Are we being too easily offended today? Was Jesus wrong when he "offended" the Pharisees? The Real Issue While truly seeking to avoid being offensive to good brethren, truth must yet be presented. And to those who are in the process of going into error or holding to error on fellowship (unity in diversity), there is absolutely no way to preach the truth while failing to offend you. It is a fact that some have sought publicly, diligently, and over a period of years, to promote fellowship with error on adulterous marriages. Our preaching is going to offend you. It is a fact that some have insisted that we have fellowship with those who teach this error. Our preaching is going to offend you. It is a fact that articles have been written (and now put into tract form) that promote fellowship with differences of "considerable moral and doctrinal differences." This is an open invitation to a wider application of unity in diversity. Our preaching is going to offend you. It is a fact that some are broadening fellowship to include issues about drinking, gambling and immodesty, as well as instrumental music, premillennialism and sectarianism. Our preaching is going to offend you. It is a fact that nearly all efforts to meet and discuss these matters have been denied by those who continue to push and promote error. Our preaching is going to offend you. It is a fact that invitations to debate this issue have been universally denied. Our preaching is going to offend you. The Purpose of Preaching Knowing in advance that gospel preaching is going to offend those in error, let us emphasize that the purpose of preaching is not to offend. The purpose of gospel preaching is to bring men face to face with the word of God. The message of the cross to those in sin is "repent." Jesus himself said, "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved" (Jn. 3:17). Even so, to the disciples, Jesus said, "All of you will be offended because of me this night..." (Mk. 14:27). Jesus could not do the Father's will and fail to offend the Pharisees, and even his apostles. A true disciple never preaches to offend. But a true disciple must be ready for the truth to offend, if need be. If the truth offends you, you must repent. Faithful preachers will not temper their message to salve the feelings of sinners, however close and fraternal they may be. As one who has been accused of giving offense, I have the responsibility to watch myself, my attitudes, my motives. As Peter stated: "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed" (1 Pet. 3:15-16). A Final Suggestion To those who register a complaint that our preaching is too plain, too harsh, (in a word) too offensive, let me ask something of you. Since you say that you are preaching the same truth that we preach but we are faulty in our approach, and you can do it better, why not get at it? Where are the public teachings from these men that bring adulterous marriages before the bar of God's justice? Where are the places where the "same truth that we teach" about fellowship with sin is being clearly declared? Where are the sermons that are showing the error of unity in diversity? Where are the sermons being taught that are saying the same truth that we are saying, but doing it in a better way? Some have expressed a willingness to debate Romans 14 and Fellowship (though none have signed a debate proposition yet). If we are teaching the same truth on fellowship with sin, why do you want to debate us? If we are teaching the same truth (only we are not doing it as well as you are able), why is it that more and more compromising preachers are looking to you as champions of their cause? When some want to have fellowship with gamblers, immodest dress advocates, adulterous marriages, social drinkers, loose doctrinal positions, etc., etc., why is it that they look to you as ones who defend their positions? The truth of the matter is that style and form of preaching is not the issue. If there is room in the Lord's church for all kinds of methods of preaching (and there is), why is the "watchman" method (a Biblical approach: Isa. 52:7; Rom. 10:14-15) not acceptable? What needs to be stressed is that a compromising spirit has affected many who actually object to truth being taught. When it is taught, they are offended and cry "Peace, peace, when there is no peace" (Jer. 6:14). However, there are still men who have the attitude of Isaiah: "For Zion's sake, I will not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest..." (62:1). If you had lived in Jesus' time of earthly ministry, would His message have offended you, as it did the Pharisees? -- Via Watchman Magazine, June 1998 ___________________________________________ Armstrong's Folly by Robert F. Turner Few if any cults of our day have deluded more people, with greater error, than has Herbert W. Armstrong and his Radio Church of God. Thousands hear his son, Garner Ted, and swallow his "smooth speech" without realizing the background of Anglo-Israelism that is in his "prophecy" nor the consequences of its error. Herbert W. wrote: "We want to impress here that Israel and Judah are not two names for the same nation.... The House of Judah always means Jew. This distinction is vital if we are to understand prophecy.... The next place where the term "Jew" is mentioned in the Bible, the House of Israel had been driven out in captivity, lost from view, and the term only applies to those of the House of Judah. There are no exceptions in the Bible" (Where Are the Ten Lost Tribes? H. W. Armstrong, p. 8). The mere "smatterer" in Bible history will remember that following the reign of Solomon, the Israelites were divided into two nations--the two southern tribes of Judah and Benjamin being called "Judah," while the ten northern tribes kept the name "Israel." This distinction is found frequently in Chronicles, etc., and in the writings of the Prophets during this time. But the Prophets foretold reunion (Jer. 30:1-4, etc.) and Nehemiah prayed for "Israel." "All Israel" gave portions to the Levites (Neh. 12:47); some of the children of "Israel" returned with Ezra (Ezra 6:21; 7:7), and men of "Israel" repented of having taken foreign wives (Ezra 10:25). Isaiah said the Lord would "set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people...from Assyria, etc." (Isa. 11:10-f.). The first time points to their physical restoration, referred to above. The second time refers to redemption in Jesus Christ, where both Jew (all Israelites) and Gentile (all others) have equal opportunity to be one in their salvation from sin. The New Testament does not maintain the strict distinction which Mr. Armstrong says is so "vital if we are to understand prophecy." Jesus sent His disciples to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel," "the cities of Israel"--and they went to the Jews (Matt. 10:6,23). (Israel was not as "lost"--physically--as Armstrong seems to think.) Paul was "of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin," an impossible combination if Armstrong is right (Phil. 3:5). But the truth is that the Judah-Israel distinction of "divided kingdom" days was not maintained; some of Israel as well as some of Judah (not all) returned to Jerusalem (Anna the prophetess was of the tribe of Asher, Lu. 2:36); and Armstrong's idea that the British and American people are the descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh--"the ten lost tribes"--is foolish. It is Armstrong who does not understand prophecy. His special brand of folly, first advocated during the plush Colonial days of Briton, is a "superior race" concept; although the current reaction to such a spirit may cause this facet of the doctrine to be soft-pedaled. The materialistic basis, like all premillennialism, refuses to accept the Holy Spirit's explanation of prophecy and the church. -- Via Plain Talk, November 1970 ___________________________________________ In All the Wrong Places... by Jim R. Everett Ever hear someone say, when they finally found an item they lost, "Wouldn't you know, it was in the last place I looked!"? Someone once said that if it had been in the first place they looked, they wouldn't have looked in any other place, so that every time an item is found it is always in the last place someone looks. Happiness is like that. People look in all the wrong places. The problem with happiness is most people never find it. If they were really wise, they would look where it could be found first and then live life with the greatest degree of enjoyment. It's like the man who set out to search the world for the best ox that could be found in all the earth. He traversed the countryside, looking wherever anyone bragged about how great his ox was. It was only when he became old and had wasted his fortune in his quest to find the best ox that he realized he had been riding him all along. "If only I could move and start afresh, I could be happy." "If I had a new house, car, the right job or could marry the right person, I could then experience true happiness." But happiness is not found in places or things. It is not even found in accomplishments. The possession and use of material things have a momentary satisfaction that does not last. If we labor and take pride in building, the satisfaction comes from the labor itself or in producing something that makes us feel good. But such things give no inner peace, no tranquility or contentment. Jesus offered the Samaritan woman water. If she drank of this water, she would never thirst again -- she would be spiritually satisfied (John 4:10-15). Christians are the happiest people in the world, for Christians have learned contentment in all circumstances. It matters not whether they are rich or poor, they are content (Philippians 4:10-15). They are happy, because they know who they are and where they are going. They know that God is their father and He protects them. They have found acceptance and love and have experienced forgiveness and reconciliation (Acts 8:36-40; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21). What else really matters? Where do you think happiness is to be found? Is it in making more money and having more things? Perhaps it is in the least likely place people look -- like the centerpiece on the coffee table in a book called The Bible? Don't let that be the last place you look. ________________________________________ MYRTLE STREET CHURCH OF CHRIST 1022 Myrtle Street Denham Springs, LA 70726 (225) 664-8208 Sunday: 9:15 AM, 10:00 AM, 4:00 PM Wednesday: 7:00 PM evangelist/editor: Tom Edwards (225) 667-4520 e-mail: tedwards@onemain.com web site: http://home.onemain.com/~tedwards/go ________________________________________