Truth shortened ... is sometimes not very true

by Mark Roberts

I remember watching football games as a boy with my dad. If I left the room for some reason, say to get something to eat, dad would wait until I was out of sight of the TV and then shout, “He’s running for a touchdown!” Of course, I would race back into the room to see this great run, only to find that the ball carrier had been tackled after a routine play. Dad would grin and say, “Well, he was running for a touchdown, he just didn’t make it!” This little anecdote illustrates how we have to be careful with what we say. If we aren’t, we can mislead people, and when folks are misled about the Scriptures this is a very serious matter. Matthew 12:36 contains a sober warning from our Lord: “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak.” Of late, I have noticed some common “short answers” on key Bible issues that may be shortening up the truth a little, and thus may not be very true.

“A woman can’t teach a man.” How many times have you heard this? We quickly say this when discussing why women don’t teach mixed adult Bible classes or preach from the pulpit. Yet this short answer was also used by a woman who called me to ask what to do since a man at work had asked her several very good questions about Christianity. He was sincerely seeking the truth, but she felt uncomfortable answering his questions because he was a man. Where did such thinking come from? For certain, 1 Cor 14:34ff and 1 Tim 2:12 forbid women from taking the leading public speaking role in our assemblies and mixed adult Bible classes. However, please note there is no blanket prohibition forbidding all teaching of men by women in all situations. In fact, saying “A woman can’t teach a man” directly contradicts the Scriptures. Acts 18:25-26 tells us about Apollos: “He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately.” Priscilla didn’t know a woman couldn’t teach a man - she (along with her husband) did exactly that! Further, note that Colossians 3:16 commands us to “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.” Women teach men in the assembly as they sing, don’t they? The Bible shows us there are avenues of teaching that a woman should not use (i.e. the pulpit), but women are commanded to teach (and to teach men) by other means. A woman can teach by example, by word (in song or through a question in Bible class), or through writing an article, or by discussing religious subjects with a man in a setting in a way where she doesn’t usurp authority. The sister who called me had let a valuable evangelistic opportunity get away because she believed an abbreviated version of what “we” believe. Instead of speaking half-truths let’s tell all the truth: “A woman can’t teach a man in a public, mixed setting like from the pulpit or a mixed adult Bible class.”

“It’s wrong to eat in the building.” Having watched mainstream churches of Christ build million dollar facilities to house potlucks and basketball games, this quick line has been used to explain what is wrong with family life centers, fellowship halls and church gyms. Unfortunately, while it may reflect some truth, it does so poorly. When we say this in discussion with folks who allow social and recreational activities in the church building, how do they reply? They immediately ask if we allow nursing mothers to feed their babies in the building! Then they ask about the preacher eating his lunch in his office in the church building, and they follow up by asking if we have a drinking fountain. Suddenly the whole discussion is about a four-year old eating Cheerios during the sermon! The trouble here is that we’re focusing the issue in entirely wrong place. It is not wrong for a kid to eat crackers during worship or for someone to get a drink from the water fountain or the preacher to eat lunch in his office or mommas to feed their babies in the nursery. Those things are incidental to our assembling. They are not what we assemble for, they are not the purpose for which we built the building and they are not what brings us together. These incidental matters have nothing to do with building and maintaining a special facility for recreational and social activities. They are not parallel in any way. No one comes to the church building just to get a drink of water! Assembling is commanded in Hebrews 10:25 which authorizes building a place to assemble and the incidental matters that occur when brethren come together to worship. What we need to do is ask about the Bible authority for the church to build, maintain and pay for a facility that is used for social and recreational purposes. Where do the Scriptures teach that God wants His funds used to pay for anything except evangelism, edification or benevolence?

By the way, have you ever thought that people could eat in the building lawfully if such was necessary to benevolence? For example, if a tornado wiped out several members’ homes they could live in the church building - eating, sleeping and doing all else necessary in their lives - if the church chose to relieve them in such a way. Of course, it would probably be a lot easier and convenient for the church to pay to put them in a hotel, but the point here is not what is easiest but what would be lawful. It would be lawful for the church to use God’s assets and God’s money to do God’s work (in this case, benevolence). What is unlawful and unauthorized is to use God’s assets and God’s money to do what is not God’s work (fun and games). If it goes on in the church building, it needs to be evangelism, edification, benevolence, or something incidental as we gather to do those three works. When a church constructs a multimillion dollar facility to play games and have parties that is hardly incidental, and such is not evangelism, edification or benevolence. That means it is unauthorized and should not be done! Arguing about a water fountain in the foyer won’t ever change that. Thus, we do truth a service when we speak the whole truth: “Where does the Bible authorize the church to pay for and provide a place for social and recreational activity?”

“Miracles have ceased.” How often have you heard that said? Again, there is certainly some truth in this statement, but a closer inspection shows that this quick little line may put God out of business! What do we mean when we say “Miracles have ceased?” What we mean is that the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, as given to men and women by the apostles, have ceased today. That is, of course, absolutely true. Miracles were designed to confirm the Word (Heb. 2:4; Mark 16:17-18). As such, they were rendered needless when the written Word was completed. Paul specifically said such gifts would pass away in 1 Corinthians 13:8-10. Thus, no human today can do miracles. When people claim to lay hands on someone and heal him they are mistaken or flatly deceiving folks. The miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit are no more. Saying such might cause someone to decide that if all the miracle workers are gone then miracles must have ceased, right? But all the miracle workers are not gone. God can do miracles! Scripture is full of places where God suspended natural law (the definition of a miracle) to accomplish His will. The psalmist says, “I will ponder all your work, and meditate on your mighty deeds” (Psalm 77:12). We do well to remember that God can still do mighty deeds! God can work through natural means (the definition of providence) to accomplish His will, but I know of no Scripture that limits God’s work to natural means only. God can do as He pleases! So God can bless Hannah and Elkanah with a baby through entirely natural processes (1 Samuel 1:19b) and God can bless Mary with a baby through entirely supernatural processes (Matthew 1:23). When we say miracles have ceased, we are in effect restraining the Lord! So when we pray for someone to recover from illness it may be God’s will to grant that prayer through human agents, like doctors and medicines. However, God might choose to directly intervene and heal a person through no means of any kind. That is God’s choice and His prerogative! Paul reminds us: “Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, to Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen” (Eph. 3:20-21).

This is an important point because it affects our praying. When the doctors say, “There is nothing else to be done,” do we stop praying? I have had some come to me with heavy hearts, certain all was lost because they couldn’t petition God to act directly on a very ill loved one. When I urged them to pray, they told me it would do no good! See how our human explanation pertaining to miraculous gifts ends up putting constraints on God? Of course, one cannot restrain God; we limit ourselves and our prayers. I am happy to report that I have known of cases where God did what only God could do and a person recovered - perhaps despite a lack of prayer when it should have been because of prayer.

I am not too concerned about my dad playing a little joke on me during football games (and rest assured I have returned the favor many times). Misconstruing the teaching of Scripture is a far more serious matter. We do not want to hinder women from teaching the Gospel as they can and should, we do not want to perpetrate false ideas about the use of the church building, and we certainly don’t want to hinder our own praying. Jesus’ warning is sobering: “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak” (Matthew 12:36). Let us be careful with the truth, not careless. Let us be certain not to substitute a “short form” of the truth that is not nearly as truthful as it needs to be.