Shelly McKenna

• About this site

Personal Story of Becky Kew - "In our small town of 800 people, it seemed as if drinking was all there was to do. I remember times when my Mom and Dad fought. I used to wonder: Why do they love this brown bottle so much when it brings so much misery? Why don't they love me? Is this all my fault?  One time he had her pinned down on the coffee table and I really thought that this time, he would kill her." (more)

• About this site

Sarah Stickfort

• About this site

Brian Elliott - God’s good news was always bad news to me. All it seemed to do was remind me that some day I was going to die and leave this world to meet God. It constantly reminded me I was going to hell. (more)

• About this site

Aric Stickfort

• About this site

Ron Mills' Story - At the age of 22 I started to consider suicide as an answer to feelings of hopelessness. By the time I was 23 I would get brief periods of wondering “is this all there is to life?" I remember going to night clubs after drug use and drinking and just standing amongst hundreds of people and feeling very alone and tired of life. There had to be more to this Life (more...)

• About this site

• About this site

OXFORD GROUP
What do you think of the Oxford Group movement?

Much has been written for and against this religious cult. It ought not to be difficult for anyone who has experienced true conversion to God and found peace with Him by faith, on the ground of the precious blood of Christ, to form a correct view of a movement in which, no doubt, as in Freemasonry, Roman Catholicism, Seventh Day Adventism, etc., some true children of God are entangled. But the crucial question is, what place has Christ and His atoning work in it? It is the Sermon on the Mount, vaguely grasped, not the Atonement of Calvary, which is the favourite watch-word. It is “the Spirit” as a sort of “familiar spirit,” whispering in the ear, rather than the Holy Spirit of God testifying to Christ through the Scriptures. As far as we learn, no questions are raised to aspirants as to their doctrinal belief. A Unitarian is just as welcome as a Trinitarian; a Roman Catholic, as a Protestant; an Anglo-Catholic, as an Evangelical. It is as though the prodigal son had staged a homecoming scene, with confession, reconciliation, best garment, shoes, fatted calf, etc., all complete, but remaining the while in the far country. It is Cain offering the fruits of the earth and making himself believe it is he, not Abel, who is accepted. It is a building without foundation, but ‘best hotel accommodation’ provided for all. It is assuming the name and privileges of the family without being born into it. It would indeed be surprising were such a system anything but attractive to decent woridings.

William Hoste

• About this site

Were the Old Testament saints born again?

I should think there could be no doubt that all the Old Testament saints were born of God, for how else could they have had communion with Him? The carnal mind (or the minding of the flesh) is enmity against God. How could David then have had the “desire to dwell in the house of the Lord,” or “thirst for the living God” unless he had received a new nature? The Old Testament saints were saved on the principle of faith, and no doubt God was revealed to their souls according to the measure of light bestowed. Our Lord speaks of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob sifting down in the Kingdom of Heaven with many from the east and the west (Matthew 8:11)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 8:11), and in John 3:3," TARGET="_blank">John 3:3, he lays down to Nicodemus the law of entrance into that Kingdom, namely, th reception of the new life: “Except a man be born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God.”

Surely this shews conclusively that Old Testament saints will only enter the Kingdom as born of the Spirit. 01 course, we make a difference between that—the bestowal of new life, and the indwelling of the Spirit or the baptism in the Spirit; these belong uniquely to New Testament saints. Nor do the Old Testament saints belong to the church, but they were undoubtedly individually regenerated. As for us, it seems safer and more practical to confine ourselves to what the Word reveals. No doubt the Spirit does work on men’s souls. It is just here that the mistake arises. It is to assume that the first work of the Spirit is to communicate life, whereas it is rather to create a sense of sin or at least of need. The natural man is dead in trespasses and sins, but this does not mean that he has no conscience or responsibility or capacity to listen.

I have heard it said that the 3000 at Pentecost in Acts 2" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:  were “born of God” when they cried, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” and, if I mistake not, that Nicodemus to whom the Lord uttered the words “Ye must be born again,” was already born again, or he would not have come to the Lord. That a theory should entail such conclusions suffices, I think, for its refutation. The reception of the new life is connected with the reception of Christ, or the revelation of God proper to the dispensation. “As many as received Him, to them gave He the power (or right) to become children of God.” John 1:11-12" TARGET="_blank">John 1:11-12 There the order seems clearly_faith first, then life, because the new words are “even to as many as believed (not “had believed”) on His name”—"believing” is only another way of saying “receiving.” I think Hebrews 6" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 6: , for instance, shews us how far men may go in the things of God, and yet never have been born again, and so with other passages. Alas, how many have evinced some interest in the things of God, and even like the stony ground hearers have received the Word with joy, but it has proved later to have been in appearance rather than in reality. How solemn the call to each is, to make our calling and election sure!

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

When Should Sisters Wear Head Coverings?

Earl Ritchie, Vancouver, BC

Recent answers in the Q and A section of Truth and Tidings have engendered correspondence by some who view the subject differently. It is not the intent of the board of T and T that the magazine become a forum for debate. But in light of the importance of this subject, we have invited an article with an opposing view. The article which follows was submitted by our brother Ritchie. We leave with our readership the article and the Q and A - but above all the Word of God. We also feel it vital to stress that when leadership in an assembly has requested head coverings at events such as those mentioned in the article, the spiritual response is "Obey them that have the rule over you and submit yourselves" (Heb 13:17)." TARGET="_blank">Heb 13:17). God places no premium on rebellion.

AJH

When Should Sisters Wear Head Coverings?

This article is intended to help with the issue as to when head coverings should be worn. As with any other question about the conduct of a believer, it is essential that we be spiritually minded, looking for ways of pleasing God in our lives. First, most believers in assembly fellowship have some idea as to why we insist on head coverings for sisters and uncovered heads for brethren in the meetings. The reasons are to be found mainly in 1 Corinthians 11." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11. It would be a good thing for us to learn something about the "ships" in our NT: Lordship, headship, worship, and fellowship.

Let’s assume that we agree that covered heads and uncovered heads portray the important teaching of headship, that the man is the head of the woman, that Christ is the head of the man, and that God is the head of Christ. Let us agree that these statements in 1 Corinthians 11" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11 are for us as much as they were for those first century Christians. These are not notes on cultural practices or Paul’s ideas about how people should dress. Now the question is, when should the heads of the sisters be covered and the heads of the brethren be uncovered? If we take these instructions in the assembly setting we are probably very close to the answer because the epistle is addressed to an assembly, "The church of God which is at Corinth," and then broadened out to include us, "with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord" (1 Cor 1:2" TARGET="_blank">1 Cor 1:2 ).

The question will then arise, what about weddings and funerals which could be considered private functions, not assembly gatherings? Actually, in both weddings and funerals we are drawing very close to the Lord; these functions are quite different from birthday parties or graduation parties. At a wedding or a funeral, the saints gather to pray, to read the Word of God, to speak out the gospel, and to be in the presence of God for comfort. Both the wedding of believers and the funeral of a departed saint could be included in the expression, "When ye come together" (1 Cor 11:17, 18, 20, 22, 33, 34)." TARGET="_blank">1 Cor 11:17, 18, 20, 22, 33, 34). Many good brethren have listed the various meetings of the assembly as portrayed in the N. T. but the fact that weddings and funerals are not on their list does not rule out the fact that these functions could be considered extensions of our meetings. These occasions are more than family gatherings for social purposes; they are cases of the assembly coming together to seek God’s blessing on a marriage union or the testimony and comfort of a funeral.

The commentary on Corinthians by J. Hunter in the What the Bible Teaches series, is very helpful here: "It must be stated that the N. T. knows nothing of one gathering of the saints being of a different order or rank from another ... Nor is it the presence of the bread and the cup, but the presence of God, that makes the assembly sacred" (p 125). In other words, when we have gathered for a wedding or a funeral, we are in the presence of God and we should observe the same norms of behavior and dress. How disrespectful and irreverent it would be for the brethren to sit through the whole wedding or the funeral with their heads covered; likewise how irreverent it would be for sisters to come bareheaded into a gathering which is specifically intended to join a brother and a sister in a relationship in which headship is exemplified.

The Word of God clearly marks out a difference between men and women. Our North American society is doing its best to blur the differences between the genders. Let us, as believers, follow the Word of God. Weddings and funerals could be considered extensions of assembly meetings where the saints have gathered to wait upon God for His blessing and, in the case of the funeral, to remember His kindness and grace in saving the departed brother or sister. Reverence, respect, and godliness should mark the day. We don’t need worldliness and irreverence to spoil these important days.

Weddings and funerals have a personal and private aspect as well. There is no reason why, with a little imagination and preparation, we cannot add the personal touch without violating principles of the Word of God. The wedding reception and the refreshment time after the funeral tend to be less formal and more relaxed thus providing opportunities for personal expressions of congratulations at weddings or condolences or memories after a funeral.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Ought children who say they are saved and ask for baptism, to be baptized and received into fellowship without delay, or ought they to be asked to wait for a time?

The Scriptures teach the baptism, not of adult believers, but of believers—”He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved” (Mark 16:16)." TARGET="_blank">Mark 16:16). “Manyof the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized” (Acts 18:8)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 18:8). “When they believed Philip preaching. . . they were baptized, both men and women” (Acts 8:12)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 8:12). It is true that children are not mentioned here, only “men and women”—but this, I think, merely emphasises the fact that both sexes were baptised, or perhaps there was no child believer on the occasion. But the fact that we never read of children as such being baptised, merely arises from the fact that it is not the age of a candidate that is in question, but the faith.

Can a child of thirteen believe the Gospel? Undoubtedly it can; and many such have been brought to faith, confession, baptism and fellowship, and have stood well. We do not know if there were children in the households of Lydia and the Philippian jailor, etc., but if so, they were old enough to hear the Word, believe, and be baptized. On the other hand, children are easily impressed and are apt to follow the example of their elders, and I am afraid it is a fact that few would contest, that some children have been too lightly received as believers and baptized, and their after-history has not been encouraging, but has rather cast doubt on the reality of their confession of faith. Is not then the evident lesson that no rule can possibly be made? Each case must stand on its own merits. If the parents and elder brethren, whose advice may well be asked, are satisfied, let them go forward in faith and count on God! But if there be not unamity of judgment, further waiting would be indicated. At the same time, there is a danger of discouraging true faith and putting the child back from a step, which might under God’s blessing be a deciding factor in its whole future. The word, “saved,” in Mark 16" TARGET="_blank">Mark 16:"16 goes further than “forgiven” or “justified,” it seems to include the thought of deliverance, which is connected so closely with the truth of death and resurrection, in baptism, and it would be sad to deprive a real believer, be it young or grown-up, of this help in the Christian life.

Some parents who have perhaps too easily encouraged their children to be baptized have later on regretted it, and some who have discouraged their children have lived to regret it, too. We are cast upon God for each case, and if we definitely wait on Him, He will surely give oneness
of mind to those concerned.

W.H.

• About this site

What Tabernacle is referred to in Exodus 33:7-11" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 33:7-11?

According to the sequence of the chapters, the Tabernacle was not yet built. Some have inferred from Deuteronomy 10:1-5" TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 10:1-5 that Moses made the Ark during this interval, between his destruction of the first tables and the bringing down of the second, as a receptacle for the second tables which could not be entrusted to Israel. What do you say to this?

Certainly Deuteronomy 10:1-5" TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 10:1-5 would bear the above interpretation, “and I made an ark of shittim wood. . . and I put them (the tables of the Lord) in the Ark which I had made.” Yet we must remember that in Deuteronomy, Moses is admittedly only giving a summary of things, so that events spread over a period, are compressed, as occurring almost synchronously. For dates and details we must consult Exodus and Numbers. In Exodus 25:10" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 25:10 the directions as to making the Ark are given to Moses, during his first sojourn on the Mount, but were only communicated to the children of Israel in Exodus 35:12," TARGET="_blank">Exodus 35:12,  after his second sojourn there. Only in Exodus 37:1" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 37:1 does Bezaleel actually make the Ark of shittim wood, in which the tables were eventually placed. We cannot admit that there were two Arks; for it is evident in Deuteronomy 10" TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 10 that the tables were to be permanently in the Ark which Moses is said to have made for them—”and there they be as the Lord commanded me.” This was actually done in Exodus 40:20" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 40:20 “And he took and put the testimony into the ark.” There is nothing really contradictory to this in the passages quoted. As for the tabernacle mentioned in Exodus 33:7-11," TARGET="_blank">Exodus 33:7-11, it could only have been a temporary tent of meeting called “The tabernacle of the congregation” (Exodus 33:7)," TARGET="_blank">Exodus 33:7), to which anyone went, who sought the Lord.” After the sin of the golden calf, God would not go up in the midst of the people, so this tent was pitched without the camp. When the actual Tabernacle was constructed and erected, Jehovah once more took His place in the midst of His people (Exodus 25:8;" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 25:8; Exodus 29:45;" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 29:45; Numbers 2:2)," TARGET="_blank">Numbers 2:2), no doubt, on the ground of sacrifice. The other temporary tent would naturally fall into disuse.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site