Truth Magazine

By Donald P. Ames

A problem that has a tendency to crop up every once in awhile is the effort to restrict those who are to be allowed to partake of the communion, or Lord’s Supper. Usually this is done with one of two approaches: (1) the concept of “closed communion,” or (2) challenging whether or not one deserves the right to partake (“worthy”).

“Closed communion,” as popularly practiced by denominationalism, carries with it two basic elements: (1) only faithful members in good standing are allowed to partake of the Lord’s Supper, and (2) no visitors are to be included in that number (as there is obviously no way to determine if they are “faithful” and/or “in good standing”). One Baptist church manual I have in my library even points out it is the responsibility of the church to examine the individual to see if he is “ignorant and ungodly.”

The fallacy of such reasoning is not hard to point out. For example, when Paul tarried at Troas (Acts 20) to meet with the disciples who gathered together to “break bread,” he would not have been allowed to partake in such a church today, since he was not a member of the church at Troas. And just how “ignorant” can one be and still be allowed to partake? Could he be allowed to partake in a congregation where the average IQ was not as high as it might be in a university town – but then the barred in the university town for being too “ignorant”? Is a new convert “ignorant” compared to a member who has studied for 30-40 years? And just how “ungodly” does one have to be before the church decides that he is no longer “worthy” to partake? Might it not depend on who is doing the judging? What criteria do they use to deem him “ungodly” and unworthy to partake and still excuse themselves (and/or others) also guilty of sins and allow them to partake. Suppose someone is engaged in sins they are ignorant of, do they become guilty of participating in his ungodly activities by accepting him as “worthy” to partake?

Actually, there is nothing at all in the New Testament to support the concept of “closed communion.” Some would seek to justify the idea on the basis of 2 Corinthians 6:15-16, which is not even dealing with the Lord’s Supper. Others would attempt to justify it on the basis of 1 Corinthians 11:27 and the idea one must be “worthy” to Dartake. This is also a false concent.

Actually, though, the church is not the one charged to do the examining! Paul says, “Let a man examine himself” (1 Cor. 11:28). Nowhere has Christ turned over to any church, or any other group of men, the right to exclude or dictate who may be allowed (or not allowed) to fulfill the command Jesus left us individually to do when he said, “This do in remembrance of me” (1 Cor. 11:24). He did not say,.” Let the church examine a man.”‘ Paul said, “Let a man examine himself. ” The concept of “closed communion” is simply not found in the Bible!

Some, while recognizing “closed communion” is not taught in God’s word, attempt to do about the same thing by charging someone is not “worthy” to partake of the Lord’s Supper. So, they look over an individual, conclude he has done things he should not have (or may be even an individual that has been withdrawn from and simply keeps on coming), and conclude it is a mistake to even offer him the communion until he changes his way of living. The idea one must be “worthy” to partake does not die easily. It is a carry-over from Roman Catholicism, and again, it is not taught in the word of God either. Indeed, none of us was worthy of the death of Christ upon the cruel cross of Calvary. None of us is worthy of it today. If we had to be sinlessly perfect and so righteous we were worthy of such, there would have been no need for Christ to have come into this world to save us, or to shed his blood on the cross in our behalf. Our salvation would have been granted as a debt, and not by grace! (Eph. 2:8-9).

But the word in 1 Corinthians 11:29 is not worthy, but rather the word is worthily. The NKJV translates it “in an unworthy manner.” It is an adverb, describing how we are to partake -.not our condition in order to be allowed to partake. This distinction is a very important one to remember.

The purpose of the Lord’s Supper is to bring us back to the death and suffering of Christ on the cross. Hence, we proclaim the Lord’s death (1 Cor. 11:26) when we partake of the Lord’s Supper “in memory of me.” Christ died on the cross for our sins, and does not want us to forget that sacrifice! Nor does he want us to forget all the suffering he went through for us in that death. That is why the bread is to remind us of his body, and the fruit of the vine of his blood shed for our sins. The purpose of the Lord’s Supper is to focus all our attention on his death.

If we are not Christians, obviously the Lord’s Supper is not a “memorial” to us because we have not benefitted in the blessings his death made available for us – the remission of our sins. We are not any better for having partaken. (Does a Frenchman become an American simply because he joined.in shooting off fireworks on the 4th of July?) Nor are we actually any worse off (remember, if one is lost, be is not going to be “more lost?” by partaking of a memorial that does not affect him). True, such a one needs to be taught who the memorial was designed for, but sometimes some become almost paranoid if a non-Christian partakes, as if his participation is going , to cause him to be even more lost than he already is. Just teach him who it was designed for, and the issue will resolve itself.

If we are Christians, as we ponder what he went through to make salvation possible for us, it ought to humble us (“Who am I to deserve such love and suffering?”), and make us even more determined to live for him because of what he did in dying on the cross for us. Failure to meditate on such a purpose (i.e., if we regard it as a mere meal or a hindrance to getting home sooner) makes us as guilty of mocking (“making light of”) the death of Christ as were those who actually mocked him at his crucifixion (see Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26-29 for the same attitude involved in those who would turn away from the cross and back to the ways of sin).

For th is cause, many among those at Corinth were weak and sick, and some asleep (i.e., dead spiritually). They had perverted the purpose of the Lord’s supper from a memorial of Christ’s death into a common meal, and had completely lost sight of its true purpose. They were not even thinking of what Christ had told them, what he went through for them, nor why this “memorial” had been left. In “making light of” its true purpose, they were not “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” – just as if they had joined those who made mockery of him on the cross. In this, they ate and drank “condemnation” upon themselves “not discerning the Lord’s body.” They had instead made it into an occasion of satisfying fleshly desires. Paul says such desires ought to be satisfied “at home,” and that they were not to corrupt the “memorial” of Christ by such! If they had in deed partaken of the Lord’s Supper for the purpose for which it was intended, just the opposite would have occurred. Instead of being weak, sick and some asleep; they would have been drawn closer to the Lord and more desirous of doing his will as a way of showing their appreciation for the wonderful sacrifice he made in their behalf.

Now, having said all that, let us reconsider the person who knows his life is not what it should be (or ought to know), and yet plans to go ahead and partake of the Lord’s Supper anyway. Should we rebuke him? Should we refuse to serve it to him? Or, should we encourage him to partake? I believe one who is openly being rebellious ought to be rebuked as any other sinner would be. Some, however, may be “pondering” the question; and others may just be waking up to the fact something is amiss (some sins are usually more “obvious” to everyone else than they are to the one engaged in them). Should we allow them to partake? Yes, they ought to be allowed, yea encouraged, to partake. As he thinks about the purpose of the Lord’s Supper, he ought to be indeed ashamed of what his life is, and how he has shown appreciation to Christ for the salvation and remission of sins be suffered and died to make available.

Failure to partake not, only pushes the purpose of the memorial even further from our minds (hence, we become “weak and sick and many asleep”), but it also gives the erring Christian a resigned sense of “being lost.” He is now tempted to “accept it” in that he has taken another step away from Christ and his love by turning his back on the very reminder Christ set up to focus his attention on that sacrifice. It now becomes a resigned sense of being lost, and he continues on his way with even less pangs of conscience to remind him, “it ought not to be this way.” In this sense, he now justifies himself even in not partaking, and continues to drift even further away with nothing to turn him back (if we fail also to do our part).

A Christian can not ponder the death and suffering Christ went through for us, and then feel comfortable in doing what is wrong daily in his life! Christ did not intend for us to feel such “comfort.” He did not want us to forget what he went through, what he suffered. In doing so, he knew it would also serve to deter us from the paths of sin. An erring Christian who partakes of the Lord’s Supper should indeed feel the “coals of fire” upon his head (Rom. 12:20), as he pauses to think what that memorial actually means. If we partake “in a worthy manner,” it will humble and rededicate us to the purposes of the Lord.

Let us always remember what Paul said, “Let a man examine himself.” He will have to answer to the Lord if he partakes, “making light of” that awful sacrifice Christ made in his behalf. On the other hand, by allowing him that right, maybe he will be brought to repentance and shame by pausing to ponder what that sacrifice really means. And isn’t that why Christ so designed it?

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 7, pp. 206
April 7, 1988

By Dennis C. Abernathy

Should men be used to direct or lead the worship services when they are not faithful to attend the services of the local church (coming only on Sunday mornings)? Should these men be used in leading the local church in worship as a means to encourage them (the men) to greater faithfulness?

These questions point to a problem found in many local churches around the country. Personally speaking, I do not believe men should be used to lead the congregation in worship whose interest in, and support of, the Lord’s church is clearly lacking! This practice of using men to lead in worship who come only occasionally does not encourage them to be more faithful, but rather it encourages the opposite. It does encourage one to attend the one service in which they have an assignment, with the understanding that they can remain in their regular pattern of mediocrity and indifference.

The Bible does not teach that men are to lead in worship in order to encourage them to greater faithfulness, but rather it does teach that men are to lead because they are faithful and concerned about the work of the Lord and his church!

I recognize there is no detailed passage in the Bible giving instructions as to the service arrangements and assignments. There are, however, some scriptural reasonings upon Bible principles that need to be considered carefully.

1. Men who lead singing, wait on the Lord’s table, teach, preach, lead in prayer, etc., are leading the congregation. The kingdom of the Lord places great emphasis on righteousness. “For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:17). Those who are leading in the worship should be men whose lives radiate that righteousness. “My little children, let no man lead you astray: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. . . In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God” (1 Jn. 3:7,10).

2. Another very important consideration is one’s influence. It should be understood of those who lead the congregation in worship, that they should have a good influence on their fellow man and on their brethren (Col. 4:5). Christians are to be “salt of the earth” and “light of the world” that others may “see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 5:13-16). What kind of influence will a brother have if he seldom comes to the services, and when he does come it is but for one hour on Sunday morning? Is it good for a chronic absentee to teach in the local church? Should one who is spasmodic in his attendance lead the singing? It is a harmful influence when one leads the church in worship and it is common knowledge that he is indifferent in attendance and attitude toward the local church.

3. Worship is to be “in spirit and in truth” (Jn. 4:24). What a pitiful mockery it makes of worship, for one who is indifferent, to thank the Lord for worship, for the Bible, for the church and for the privilege of being a member of that glorious body, and then by his life show that these things mean little to him! What is one to make of the brother who leads the congregation in prayer, thanking God for the privilege of worship and praying that all be back at the next service, and then through observation learning that it is not counted as much of a privilege, because he will not be back until next Sunday morning maybe!

Brethren, as long as men are called upon to lead the congregation in worship, while at the same time they themselves are indifferent toward attending the services of the church, it is just that long that the church will be stymied as far as influence is concerned. The young people will continue to grow up thinking that it is all right to come to church occasionally. They will learn to ignore and become calloused to Bible preaching. When the preacher preaches faithfulness in attendance, and the church continues to use men to lead who are not faithful in attendance, the sword of the Spirit is dulled quite quickly!

In conclusion, men who are not faithful in their attendance do not need to be leading the church, but, they need to be led and taught and to be faithful to the Lord. They need to be taught to “seek the kingdom first” (Matt. 6:33), and to “set their affections on things above” (Col. 3:2). Brethren, let us all be faithful in our church attendance (Heb. 10:25; Jas. 4:17; Acts 2:42,46).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 6, p. 179
March 17, 1988

By Lewis Willis

In 1 Corinthians 15:58, the apostle Paul wrote: “Therefore my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.”Besides being a well-known passage of Scripture, it expresses some essential ingredients in the attitude of the Christian and his approach to the consecrated life which God wants him to live. Inasmuch as you and I are seeking to grow in those attributes which God desires in us, I thought it might be worthwhile to examine this passage. I particularly want to get before us the meanings of some key words in this Scripture. Those words are emphasized in this paragraph.

The word translated “steadfast” is the Greek word hedraios. The word is defined in this way: “primarily denotes seated; hence, steadfast, metaphorical of moral fixity” (W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 73). Thayer adds, “metaph., of those who are fixed in purpose” (Joseph Henry Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 168). What does the Christian learn from the meaning of the word “steadfast”? How will that understanding affect his approach to life? The answer is simple. The Christian who applies this message to himself will establish or “fix” in his mind a singular purpose. He will know how he is living and why. “Moral fixity” signifies settled values and actions. The Christian seeks to learn proper morals and he then commits himself to their practice. There is a great need for a moral awakening in our land and God’s people should be the ones who are pacesetters in a return to morality. This is what Paul means in telling us to be “steadfast.” There is purpose in our lives to serve God and that purpose manifests itself in moral goodness.

In reference to that purpose, the apostle says we must be ‘unmoveable. ” The Greek word here is ametakinetos which means “firm” (Vine, p. 90). Thayer adds: “not to be moved from its place, metaph. firmly persistent” (Thayer, p. 32). Thus, one who is “unmoveable” is one who is “firm” or “firmly persistent.” Webster says the word signifies that which is not capable of being moved; fixed; stationary; not changing from time to time; not varying (p. 552). Hence, the Christian has a lifestyle that is fixed and firmly established and it does not vary from time to time; from place to place; from person to person. He is persistent in standing for and defending his convictions. Therefore, these two words tell us to purpose moral goodness in our lives and not change from that goodness. This means that we are not only good people during the hours of worship or assembly but that we are good people all of the time. “Sunday only Christians” have always been the kind of people who discredit the religion of Christ the rest of the week. God does not want us to be that kind of people. He wants us to know what is right, and he wants us to do right without variation or, he wants us to do right all the time, every time.

The last word I wish to note is the word “abound.” The original Greek word is perisseuo. It means: “to be abundantly furnished, to abound in a thing,. . . to be preeminent, to excel, to be morally better off, as regards. . . the work of the Lord; exceed” (Vine, p. 18). Thayer adds: “to abound, overflow, to excel” (Thayer, p. 505). He says that the word is followed by virtues or actions in which one excels. The objective of the Christian should be to grow so that he is “abundantly furnished” in a knowledge of the word of the Lord, which enables him to excel, exceed or overflow in doing the Lord’s work. There seems to be a correlation between these three words which we are examining. (1) We are to be steadfast, or morally fixed or set in our purpose about the Christian life. (2) We are to be firm and persistent in the pursuit of that purpose. (3) Our efforts are not minimal; we are trying to exceed or excel our former efforts as we grow and do the work of the Lord. If we know where we stand, and if we are firm and persistent in that stand, and if we are always trying to exceed what we have done in the past which is good, there is no way that we will not be doing the work of the Lord.

Finally, Paul says, “ye know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.” Our efforts in doing the work that God wants us to do are not empty, void of results or useless. When we live as God wants us to live, and when we are always trying to do better or more as God’s people, our efforts will not be empty or without results. More and more people will be saved. Certainly such an attitude and approach to life will result in the salvation of our souls. The Christian’s attitude is predominantly to save himself and others. Therefore, the question is: “Do we possess the Christian’s attitude?”

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 6, p. 175
March 17, 1988

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

My defense to those who examine me Is this: Do we have no right to eat and drink? Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? Or Is It only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working? (1 Cor. 9:3-6, NKJV).

With so much world-wide attention being given to human rights issues, this may be a good time to put in a word for preachers’ rights. After all, preachers are almost human.

Preachers are in an awkward position. They must “declare to you the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27), including what the Bible says about their own rights. If they don’t teach it they open themselves to being charged with failure to teach all the Bible teaches. If they do teach it, some may charge that their teaching is self-serving. So, what shall we do? Do what Paul did. Teach it and hope that brethren will understand and learn their duty on the subject. Yet, at the same time, use good judgment about when it is best to use or not use those rights.

The ninth chapter of I Corinthians, as well as other passages, deal with preachers’ rights. It was not Paul’s purpose, nor is it ours, to demand any rights, complain about any personal ill-treatment, nor was it for any personal considerations (cf. vv. 15-16). It was to inform all of God’s will and to show that Paul sometimes would forego lawful rights for the over-all good of the Cause. If Paul could voluntarily forego his lawful rights for the good of the church, why could not the Corinthians forego their lawful right to eating of meats (as discussed in chapter 8) for the good of weaker brethren?

Now, let us look at some of the rights that Paul says that preachers have:

A Right To Be Paid

To establish this right, Paul appeals to common sense (v. 7). If a soldier does not have to pay his own way to war, and a planter of a vineyard can eat from the vineyard, and a tender of flocks can drink milk from the flock – a preacher can live from the gospel. He then appeals to the law (vv. 8-13). He quotes Deuteronomy 24:4. He also shows that those who serve the temple lived from the temple. He concludes, “even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel” (v. 14).

Brethren seem to have a problem with paying a preacher. They will support him, but not pay him. When they support him, they approach it much like supporting needy saints, i.e., he must show that he is in need before they decide if and how much they will support him. What is wrong with paying a preacher? Paul took wages for his service (2 Cor. 11:8). Jesus told the Twelve to take wages or hire for their labor during the limited commission (Lk. 10:7). These are different words in the original conveying the same idea – pay for service rendered. It is interesting that the word for wages in 2 Corinthians 11:8 is translated charges in 1 Corinthians 9:7 (KJV). Sometimes “necessity” does enter the picture and the support may be considered a gift (Phil. 4:16,17). Yet, the word for gift there is different from the ordinary idea of a free gift or charity. Thayer says it is a “thing given, cf. medical ‘dose’; . . . yet not always gratuitous or wholly unsuggestive of recompense.”

It seems to me that there are some extreme attitudes about preacher’s pay. Some want to base it wholly on “need.” Others want to give no special consideration to preachers that have exceptional needs. Some preachers blatantly declare that “it is nobody’s business what I am paid,” resenting being asked to report all wages received from preaching the gospel to the churches that pay them. Churches need to know how much the preachers to whom they supply wages are receiving from preaching. How else can they judge whether they are being adequately paid for their service they are rendering?

On the other hand, lately, I have seen some wanting a preacher to give the church a detailed report of his personal expenditures before they decide his wages. I wonder how many of these would be willing to submit themselves to the same indignity before those who supply their wages. A preacher’s personal expenditures, like anyone else’s, is none of the brethren’s business unless they know his spending is sinful. How would you like to go to work for a company, asking them how much the job pays, and being told to submit a copy of your personal budget so the company can decide how much your services are worth? Does not this get very close to being a busybody in other men’s matters?

When brethren see that their paying preachers benefits them as much as (and maybe sometimes more than) the preacher they will quit wrangling so much over “how much is enough” to pay. Paul said the fruit that is produced abounds to the church’s account (Phil. 4:17). Maybe we need to say a word about how much.

Some preachers have a hard time because brethren often ignorantly and sometimes willfully under pay them. Brethren need to either wake up or be awakened to this fact. Personally, I have no gripe. Thanks to the generosity of good brethren, my family and I have lived comfortably – probably more so than had I followed any other line of work for which I am qualified. But, I do know what some preachers are making if, reports posted on bulletin boards across the country are telling the truth. Frankly, I would like to know, their secret for avoiding bankruptcy.

There is no way to make a universal hard and fast rule for how much is adequate pay for preachers. Yet, there are some things that brethren need to be aware of as they make that a judgment. Here are some things, I believe brethren need to know:

1. The amount you see on the bulletin board is not “take home pay.” It is not all profit. Many of the withholdings (income taxes, etc.) and fringe benefits that brethren never see on their paychecks have to be paid by the preacher after he gets his check. Also, his operating expenses have to be taken from the amount you see. Because he does not have to punch the clock for secular work, he often can do extra things for the Cause. He is also called on and gladly responds to requests from brethren to do various things that he would not be asked to do if he were not a preacher. Most of the things have extra expenses connected with them. Most preachers put far more miles on their cars than the average person. These expenses must be subtracted from his gross pay to know what he is really making.

2. In 1987, unless he has filed that he is conscientiously opposed to it, 12.3 percent of his pay went to Social Security. If the church furnished him a house to live in, he had to pay 12.3 percent of its rental value – yet, he is not building one dime of equity in that house. If you gave him a housing and/or utilities allowance he had to pay 12.3 percent on that – even though the rental value or allowance is not taxed as income.

3. Some churches pay preachers’ health insurance premiums, but not many. Usually he must provide it from salary. If he gets reasonable coverage, it will likely cost from $200 to $350 per month, depending on his circumstances.

These are just a few things that brethren need to consider to be reasonable and fair in deciding how much to pay preachers.

A Right To Family Life

Paul says he and Barnabas had a right to “take along a believing wife” (v. 5), though they had not exercised that right. Peter, Catholic doctrine notwithstanding, did exercise that right.

Paul is affirming more than the mere right to have a wife. He is affirming that those who preach and live from the gospel have the right to a wife and that she too live from the gospel. If that is not what he is saying, I have missed the point. Verse 5 is part of the discussion of his right to live from the gospel. Verse 4 talks about a preacher’s right to be paid so he can eat and drink. Verse 5 talks about the right to be paid so he can “take along a believing wife.” Verse 6 continues the same subject. In short, preachers have a right to normal family life and to be paid so that they can support their families.

If a preacher exercises this right, then he should take the responsibilities that go with it; not only taking care of his family’s financial needs, but other needs as well. A family requires time to be spent with wife and children. I am afraid too many preachers have exercised their right to a wife and consequently children and then became so busy “saving the world” that they lost their own families to the world. A preacher’s wife and children need the same time and attention that any other brother’s wife and children need. Preachers and brethren who supply their wages and profit from their service need to understand this. Of course, a preacher and his family must be willing to sacrifice for the Cause of Christ – just as with any other Christian and his family.

Preachers’ kids need a daddy to take time and even have the money to do fun things with them, just as much as anyone’s kids. Preachers’ kids have to go to doctors and dentists just like any other kids. In short, preachers’ families are almost normal folks. It would be good if all preachers and all those who supply their wages understood this. There is a simply rule that governs this – it sometimes is called, “The Golden Rule. “

A Right To Stay Put

Many look on preachers as itinerant workers in the church that must always be moving from place to place “to find work.” Some have even formulated doctrines that forbid preachers from locating for a long period with a particular congregation. That was the contention of the old Garrett-Ketcherside team.

The New Testament clearly establishes the right of a preacher to stay put for an indefinite time. Paul told Timothy to “remain” or “abide still” (KJV) at Ephesus. Earlier, Paul had remained there for three years (Acts 20:31). The length of stay is a matter of judgment, not of law, whether three weeks, three months, three years, or three decades. Who can scripturally set an arbitrary time for a preacher to remain at a place? Good judgment must determine the wise course in each case. One of my friends, while talking with some brethren about moving to work with them, was asked, “How long do you usually stay at a place?” He replied, “I have only worked at two places while being fully supported by the church. I stayed at the first place seven years and left at least a year too soon. I have been where I am now for eighteen months and have been there at least a year too long.”

Preachers and congregations need to learn to let other factors determine the length of time they work together, rather than some notion that preachers need to move ever so often just for the sake of moving. I know some good men who have quit fulltime preaching because they felt that they and their families needed some roots. It is easy to say that if one preaches then he should be willing to make such sacrifices – and I agree, if a move is really needed for the sake of the Lord’s work. However, if a preacher is really doing the Lord’s work at a given place, why should his family be uprooted simply for the sake of making a change? It is my considered judgment that both preachers and churches need to be more considerate of preachers’ wives and children in this matter of arbitrarily moving them about. Often preachers are just as inconsiderate as the brethren in this thing.

A Right To Waive His Rights

There is no Scripture that says that a preacher must “live from the gospel.” Or that he must have a wife. Or that he must stay at a place many years. Circumstances may dictate to the preacher what he does about such rights. Sometimes it might even be unwise to exercise any or all such rights given him under the gospel. Yet, these rights should not be denied to him by brethren who ought to know better. For example, he may choose, as Paul did, to remain unmarried. He may even think it is best for him, his circumstances, and the particular work that he wants to do in the Lord’s vineyard. Yet, Paul declared that a sign that men had departed from the faith would be that they “forbid to marry” (1 Tim. 4:3). There is a vast difference in one voluntarily waiving his rights under the gospel for the gospel’s sake and having these same rights taken away by brethren who would bind their will (not the Lord’s) on another.

A Right To Be Different

Just because Peter, a faithful apostle and preacher, was married did not mean that Paul had to be – or vice versa. Just because some brother decides that he can serve the Lord by being fully paid from his preaching does not mean that all who preach must. Preachers may differ greatly from each other in matters of personal judgment and rights under the gospel and all still be faithful to the Lord and preach his gospel. There is too much judging the worth and faithfulness of men based on how much they are like our favorite brother in matters of personal judgment. If we know a wonderful preacher who does a wonderful work and is married, then it is easy to conclude that for any preacher to do a good work he must be married. We may know a wonderful preacher who does a marvelous work while depending on the gospel for his living and decide that unless one elects to live from the gospel that he cannot do a good work.

This list goes on. One preacher may deliver sermons with a little different twist or style or even length than what we would prefer and still be a good preacher. One may be stronger in certain areas of preaching than another. One may be strong in public speaking. Another may be more apt at “personal work.” Another’s strong suit may be writing. Each may choose to “major” in those areas where he feels he can be the most effective. Does his placing his major emphasis at a different place than that of our Brother Favorite make him any less worthy of respect and support? Do not preachers have the right to be different if they do not sacrifice any principle of the gospel in the process?

We should not deny anyone any right given him by the Lord. We need to respect the rights of others to exercise or waive their rights under the gospel. If one exercises his rights in a way that violates God’s law and damages his cause, then that is another matter. Paul discusses such a possibility within the context of our text. One would do well to read and heed it all.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 6, pp. 180-182
March 17, 1988