Truth Magazine

By Donald P. Ames

It seems that as of late, there has developed a great deal of interest in just exactly what is expected of the local evangelist. Several have expressed their views, objecting to a lot of things that are presently being shoved off on the preacher that are not in reality his obligations, but have come to be regarded as his. However, it seems to me that some of these articles have missed other points of equal value that also need emphasizing.

Work Falsely Expected

Certainly in our modern society there has been a strong tendency to pattern ourselves after denominationalism. This has manifested itself in efforts to consolidate, do everything under a centralized control in a big way to get a big name among those about us. It has also manifested itself in work expected of the preacher. In many places, when the local evangelist has been selected, the rest of the members seem to feel he is the church worker. So now that they are paying someone else to do their work, they can sit back and judge whether or not he is getting everything done that needs to be done.

However, the work of the church is not to be carried on by the preacher alone. In I Cor. 12:12-31 Paul compares the church to the human body and stresses the necessity of all parts working together for proper functioning. So it is with the body of Christ. When the members sit back and expect the preacher to do all the personal work that is accomplished, they are hindering the growth of the church. Paul points out in I Tim. 4:15 that the evangelist is to give himself wholly to his work and teaching. This does not mean though that he is to do all the personal work –that is not his job. Each and every individual member in the church sustains a relationship to his fellowman that makes him individually responsible for striving to lead him to the Lord. This also applies to wayward and weak members of the church. (Gal. 6: 1-2.) When all such work is turned over to the preacher to be done, not only are the members not studying and growing by experience as the Lord expects of us, but the preacher in turn is limited in his time available so that often either members are not visited or prospects missed or many sermons may show too much visiting (social and teaching) and not enough studying–hence handicapping the evangelist in his very purpose of preaching the word. Such circumstances should not prevail in a congregation that is striving to be pleasing to the Lord. Active personal work programs ought to be set up and put to work to keep all members active and growing.

Not only do some expect the preacher to do all the personal work, but also expect him to also be the local socialite. By that, they simply mean that they expect him to be there every Sunday to make sure he personally shakes the hand of everyone present–and are often offended if they are missed (although the idea of introducing themselves to visitors and shaking hands never occurred to them as also being an obligation of theirs). They expect him to give parties for the young people and adults, to pay a lot of social calls, support the civic clubs, take care of the visiting preacher, and many other such social obligations. The apostles well answered this themselves, saying, “‘It is not fit that we should forsake the word of God, and serve tables. Look ye out, therefore, brethren, from among you seven men… but we will continue steadfastly in prayer, and in the ministry of the word.” (Acts 6:2-4.) If a gospel preacher is going to hold a meeting, it is accepted almost without question that he will stay at the preacher’s home. Although this may be often desired by preachers who have lots they desire to talk over mutually, yet members would also do well to consider meals and bedding, etc. are not exclusively the preacher’s job and strive to get in their share also. As for the social activity, the question can well be answered by merely asking if we are hiring a man to give himself to the preaching of the word, or to forsake such for the desires of some to be a leading socialite? Again, it is the preaching of the word, and not the social back patting that is going to save men’s souls. (Rom. 1:16.)

It is also good to give consideration to teaching too, in addition to personal work, social activities, etc. All too frequently, particularly in smaller congregations, it is accepted that the preacher is to do the teaching as well as preaching. Now it is acknowledged that the preacher should teach and certainly such is a fine arrangement, but again, for personal member growth and activity, such could and often should be handled by the members themselves. All too often such an arrangement means the members sit from Sunday to Sunday to hear the preacher do his work–and put out no effort of their own. Member teaching would strengthen the congregation as a whole and also activate more members.

Work Properly Expected

Paul makes it clear from the epistles that he wrote that the preacher has a job to do. In writing to Timothy, he said, “Do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry.” (2 Tim. 4:5.) To the Colossians he also passed word on to Archippus to “take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfill it.” (Col. 4:17.) Being a minister or servant of the Lord, he has an obligation to God to do that for which he is being supported to do. This obligation is not to man, nor regulated by man (in the sense of doing equal with what my fellow-man may do), but is an obligation and relationship held jointly between the minister and the Lord. So, certainly God has regulations and instructions for what a preacher is to do also.

First of all, the preacher is under obligation to study, that he might be found acceptable to the Lord. (2 Tim. 2:15.) However, although quick to object to the social work, etc., many preachers are very slow to be ready to give themselves diligently to the study they so often emphasize should be the primary work of the evangelist. One of the leading problems in the brotherhood today is the very fact that we have a lot of preachers who just plain and simply are not studying. Why are there a lot of fence-straddlers relative to the problems of institutionalism? Is it because they can not read and understand the word of God–or because they just aren’t interested in studying to see whether or not these man-made institutions have any authority therein for them and then stand up and say so? The big problem in the church in general is that all too often, preachers are sitting back and preaching material learned in college or early years, and have plainly quit studying. If a doctor were to rely on college knowledge, we would probably change doctors quickly, but yet a congregation will continue to pay a preacher $400, $500, or even $600 monthly (all too often for his name’s sake rather than ability too–how else can such fluctuation be accounted for in many areas) for doing exactly that.

Oh, but the preacher will often object, I know more than they do anyway, they don’t know the difference, I went to school so I have the right to be supported for that for which I prepared myself. Says who??? No man has to go to school to preach the gospel, and if a man so elects to do so to learn more about the Bible, this obligates no congregation to pay him for what he himself elected to do. If churches actually paid on the basis of work turned out, there would no doubt be many well-paid preachers on hungry street. Yet they will sit back and draw a big check for turning out no more than about 10 hours a week (in many cases a liberal allotment– how much time do they actually spend in studying and work of the church per week?), which amounts to about 40 hours per month –or in other words, they are being paid a monthly wage for a weekly output.

There are many areas in the church today where the members are wholly unprepared to go out and meet the real problems of denominationalism, etc. Why? Well, partly because they have not studied. But, also a lot of the blame can be brought back to weekly, watered-down, memory-repeated sermons on nothing but faith, repentance, confession and baptism. How long has it been since a good sermon was delivered on evidences of Christianity? By that, I don’t mean the ridicule of evolution, assertions of the tremendous evidence testifying to the Bible being the word of God, and a couple of timeworn arguments that there must be a God; but a genuine sermon dealing with just exactly why the Bible is the word of God, why we know it has not been corrupted, the nature of revelation and inspiration, and the error in reasoning in modernism (the up and coming problem today). We are so accustomed to saying “the Bible says”–then along comes someone from the school of Bultmann, Barth, Ludwig, Niebuhr, or Tillich and says,

“so what–the Bible is a man-made book anyway;” then what happens? Not only are the members unprepared, but so are many of the preachers. There is a big difference in studying to be prepared to meet such problems before they arise, and repeating a couple of memorized statements that the evidence is in favor of the Bible and only the foolish question it. Such assertions are not proof (and if Cecil will permit, may T also here recommend Evidence Quarterly edited by Ferrell Jenkins, $2.00. P. O. Box 8182, St. Louis 3, Missouri).

But, someone objects, if I start talking about Niebuhr, Barth evolution, premillennialism, predestination, etc., no one will know what I am talking about. WHY??? Simply because that is exactly what has been done. We have contented ourselves with these watered-down milk sermons for so long we are afraid to study and turn out something of a deeper and meatier quality. They are ignorant of them because they are being kept ignorant of them–yet many are desirous of such actual digging and evidence to not only bolster their own faith but also enable them to meet some of these modern-day evolutionists and atheists. But, instead of such study and work, many preachers are content to get by on a week’s work for a month’s support and feel God is going to be pleased with how they enjoyed living off His money. If we put the time in studying and working for the church that we would in turn expect from someone else (doctor, factory, or any other secular job) in which we were paying the bill, there would be no evolution taught in schools, atheists ridiculing the word of God, members giving way to denominationalism, nor small struggling preachers against the forces of modernism on the march. But, do we?

Secondly, having objected to the abuse of some to make the preacher the sole personal worker, others have flopped to the other extreme of doing no personal work at all. They sit back and content themselves with the view that the preacher is to study (and put out about 10 hours per week on such while drawing a nice fat salary) and not to spend all his time running about. Members of the church do not need to be visited because they are already members, and the members ought to be active in bringing nonmembers to church instead of leaving it all to the preacher. First of all, we grant the preacher is not to do all the personal work, BUT HE IS TO DO HIS SHARE. This includes not only visiting the members (Gal. 6: l-2; Paul even visited with churches and elders to strengthen and encourage them), but also to turn out his share in bringing new converts to Christ. Just as the members err in expecting the preacher to do it all, so the minister errs who expects the members to do it all. Not only should he do personal work? But being supported full time, like it or not, he must not only give time to study (and this need not mean 8-hours per day– but a good deal more than many do), but being in the position of having more time available, he should certainly be expected to turn out as much personal work as any other active member in the congregation. They are doing it in addition to their work, but he is doing it as part of his! Upon whom will the greater responsibility and requirements be laid? Regardless of whether or not the others do their share, this does not excuse the preacher from his individual obligation. Again in analyzing what is being turned out in study and work of the church, it might do well for many to consider if they are being overly supported.

In passing, while many preachers also edit the bulletin as a further means of teaching (though they may use members to mimeograph it for their activity too), this “Mr. Selected” who has written so many articles shows only further evidence of the do-as-little-as-possible attitude in many places. First of all, if they are so ashamed of the source from which they may have gotten it, they shouldn’t have printed it in the first place. Secondly, these bulletins that are “Mr. “Selected” every week also lend strong support to the belief that the preacher is not interested enough to write some good and pointed lessons in a bulletin and is probably not interested in the amount of study he puts out either. If he studied as he is expected of God to do, he would have material for the bulletin as well as personal work, preaching discussions, or any other obstacle that might arise. In fact, if preachers were supported for their work’s sake instead of their name, those working would be rewarded in the Lord more justly, while those doing a hundred and one other things to the exclusion of the work of the church would be left out.

True, the preacher is worthy of his support (I Cor. 9, Phil. 4: 15, etc.), but there are many preachers who are drawing such for little in return. This writer does not claim perfection, nor is this article designed for any specified one person, but is a consideration of a condition far too prevalent in many areas today. In conclusion, though, there is one thought to keep before us: a man worthy of his meat should be so supported and encouraged–and if a man were worthy of his meat, in many cases such support would be forthcoming as the church would grow and be strengthened by results of study and teaching.

Truth Magazine VI: 12, pp. 4-7
September 1962

By Weldon E. Warnock

The Bible says, “Confess your faults one to another….” (Jas. 5:16.) There are too many (one is too many) church members who sin and completely ignore the teaching of this scripture. The word “confess” in this passage comes from the Greek word, “exomologeo,” which means “a public acknowledgement or confession of sins.” (Vine’s Word Studies.) This word also conveys the idea of speaking freely, openly, and from the heart. Hence, when a child of God sins in a public manner, he ought to have the courage and humility publicly to acknowledge and openly and freely confess his sins.

But somebody says, “James is talking about those who have personally wronged another.” Friend, this text is broader than that. The phrase, “Confess your faults one to another” should not be restricted to personal offenses, but it also applies to any public sin. Certainly private offenses toward our fellowman should be righted but James enjoins upon US that we correct all manner of sin that brings reproach upon the church and shame upon its Head.

John writes, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (I Jn. 1:9.) The word “confess” in this verse comes from the Greek word, “homologeo,” and means, “to confess, i.e. to admit or declare one’s self guilty of what one is accused of.” (Thayer.) Vine says of the word, “to confess by way of admitting oneself guilty of what one is accused of, the result of inward conviction.” As you can see, Thayer and Vine give almost identical definitions. The passage under consideration shows that confession of sins is made also unto God, admitting guilt, and asking his forgiveness. Whether the sin is public or private, we are to confess it to God and he will cleanse us of it.

From the foregoing scriptures, we can clearly see that it is just not enough to quit a sin or sins, but a confession of the sins is necessitated. If the sin is public, we ought to confess our faults one to another” as well as to God, but if the sin is private or secret, then we ought to only confess it to God. As David said to Jehovah, “…cleanse thou me from secret faults.” (Psa. 19:12.)

Failing to Confess

One of the laxities today in the church is a failure on the part of erring brethren to confess their sins. Some church members will quit attending services for a period of time and then show up as though nothing had happened. If they are not called upon for something or other, they will feel hurt and mistreated. Others will be guilty of drinking, lying, cursing, fraud, etc., and come to worship expecting to be used in some capacity and treated like a faithful brother. These kinds of brethren need to be told in no uncertain terms that their hearts are not right in the sight of God, and that they need to repent and confess to God and to the church for such sins. Then they can be used.

Some say that there is nothing in the Bible about brethren coming before the church or assembly and making a confession of public sins… that confession of sins should be made just to God. Certainly God didn’t tell the erring that they had to come to the front pew during an assembly to make a confession, but he did tell them to confess their faults one to another. This command could be carried out different ways. Coming forward before the church during an invitation song is just one way that this command may be obeyed. The point that we are interested in is an open and public confession of sins… not the method that is to be employed.

When a confession has been made to the church, then the church can be assured that the erring brother has repented and therefore extend to him the right hand of fellowship. Otherwise, how would the church know just when to begin using a brother if he had to confess only to God and not let the church know that he had repented of his sins? For example, let’s say a brother gets drunk and “paints the town red” and that this incident is known by several people. . If he doesn’t have to confess to the church for his disgraceful act, when could the church use him again for prayer, to preside at the Lord’s Table, etc?

First Sunday? Second Sunday? A month? The answer would be, “As soon as he repents and confesses his sin.”

The Merits of Confession

The effects of confession of sins are many. First, God is obeyed. We should always obey God. Second, confession shows a conscience that is still sensitive to sin. Many have rebelled against God until their hearts are so hardened and calloused that the word of God has no longer any effect upon them. Third, confession is a safeguard against sin. Having openly made known our sins, we will not be as prone to commit the same sins again. Fourth, others will be in better position to help the erring brother. Somebody has said that “an honest confession is good for the soul.” How true this is.

Brother, have you sinned publicly? If you have, then confess it publicly. The blood of Christ will cleanse you from all sin and you can make a new start. Then live faithfully unto death.

Truth Magazine VI: 11, pp. 12-13
August 1962

By Lloyd Barker 

One of the most sobering and yet neglected passages in the Bible is found in Luke 16:19-31. Many claim it is a parable. By so doing they hope to escape some of the plain teaching contained therein. Ly naming Lazarus personally, Jesus does not seem to be giving a parable. If it is a parable, it still has the same meaning. Jesus always took a well-known truth to teach any of His lessons. He never discussed what could not happen in His parables.

There are many great truths taught here and several false doctrines refuted. The doctrine of universal salvation is shown to be wrong. The fact that one was saved and one was lost clearly shows that not all people will he saved. (Also see Matt. 7:13. 14, 21-23.)

The false theory of materialism is exposed. The rich man’s ability to remember, cry, talk, lift up his eyes, thirst and be tormented plainly teaches he existed consciously after this physical death. (See also 2 Cor. 12: 1-3; 1 Cor 2:11; Matt. 10:28; Eccl. 12:7.) The Bible teaches that man has a spirit as well as a body.

Those who teach that the lost will have a second chance to be saved are clearly in conflict with Jesus. If there would be a second chance for the rich man, could Abraham have been so cruel as to not even mention it? Such hope would have been much more comforting than the mere drop of water requested for the parched tongue. Why have the warnings of the Judgment to come if all will have a chance to repent then?

The kindred Catholic doctrine of Purgatory is fully destroyed by the “great gulf fixed.” The silence of the Scriptures concerning Purgatory should be enough for the thinking person to know it is a vain doctrine of men. Notice that the great gulf cannot be crossed either way, except by vision. This warns that man’s destiny is “fixed” and all the money and praying that all the earth could offer will not change it.

Many people are like the Jews. (I Cor 1:22.) They want a “sign” or a “direct operation” of God’s Spirit to move them or the ones they are trying to convert. The fact that God would not perform a miracle by sending Lazarus from the dead to warn the rich man’s five brothers shows that He will not perform a miracle in any sense to convert unbelievers of that day or today. The brothers lived while Moses’ law was still in force and could hear it. (Verse 29.) Abraham reveals a truth that all need to learn. If people will not believe God’s word, they will not believe God’s miracles. We do not need miracles to convert people today. The gospel is the Lord’s power to save men and they must hear it. (See Rom. 1:16; 10:13-17; Jas. 1: 18, 21; 1 Pet. 1:22-23.)

There are many people who thoughtlessly say, “If my loved ones are lost, I want to be with them” or “If I go to hell, I’ll have plenty of company.” The rich man’s company in hell did not relieve any of his terrible pain. He certainly did not want any of his loved ones to come to “this place of torment.” My loved ones who are in hell do not want me to come there.

There are several things in hell that are needed in the church. The rich man cried. Tears are not shed often enough by Christians for the cause of Christ. The lost man saw a great need to teach the lost on earth. He was very humble and prayed fervently. This man teaches how foolish it is to trust in riches and the comforts of this life and how awful it is to be lost forever. The church needs to learn these lessons this side of hell. No doubt the rich man would give all he ever possessed and much more to have the chance to be faithful to God and walk on earth as we do today. He would no doubt make a fine preacher. If we do not live close to God, one day in hell we will wish we had. This should cause us to forgive those who sin against us, go to our brethren and correct any wrongs which we have committed, and do all things that we can and should before death. Could it be possible that some in hell have a greater desire to see the lost on earth saved than some preachers or Christians?

The picture in this passage is not all sad. Lazarus was faithful and was “carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom” to rest in joy until Christ comes. The fact that the five brothers could hear Moses shows that all may be saved. Jesus died for all and all should be saved. There is no good reason why any must be lost. God should not be blamed for the punishment of the lost.

Read Luke 16:19-31 again carefully and slowly. Jesus teaches us many great lessons here that should never be forgotten and should be taught to all men as His warning from hell. Many other individuals in hell could have been discussed and permitted to teach us but the Lord knew that one is enough to cause the sincere to think properly. A book could not hold all of the messages that those in torment would love to declare.

Truth Magazine VI: 11, pp.11-12
August 1962

By O. C. Birdwell, Jr.

Most of the problems that exist in the religious world are with us as a result of people following after men. The practice is not new, nor confined to this century. Men in ages past have turned unto man for instruction and guidance even when God’s will was revealed and plain. One such individual was a young prophet (1 Kings 13) who came out of Judah unto Bethel and cried out against Jeroboam and the altar saying, “Behold, the altar shall be rent, and the ashes that are upon it shall be poured out.” Later, when Jeroboam invited the prophet unto his house to refresh himself, we learn that God had commanded his servant saying, “Eat no bread, nor drink water nor turn again by the same way that thou camest.” Since the young prophet related this to Jeroboam, we know that he clearly understood God’s command; and that the command was explicit. Is it possible to disobey a command so simple and plain? Yes, it was then, and it is now. Especially is this true if we depend upon and follow the false instructions and leadership of man, as did this young prophet. After he left Jeroboam, and old prophet approached him with the impressive story that an angel appeared to him with instructions that would change God’s previous commands. The young prophet believed the old man was speaking the truth (possibly because the man was old, claimed to be an old prophet, and seemed pious and truthful), went back to Bethel with him, ate and drank there, and died as a result of following man and not God.

In 1 Corinthians 11:1, the apostle Paul admonishes, “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.” Again he says, “If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Gal. 1:9.) The gospel Paul preached was the gospel of Christ, and Paul would have man accept and follow that gospel although the one preaching it might be a castaway and lost. If Paul’s wishes were heeded there would be no splits and divisions in religion, but all would be able to understand and obey the Bible alike because they would follow no man but Jesus, and defend no doctrine except the doctrine of Christ. But Paul’s instructions have not been heeded; therefore many doctrines are preached, many men are followed in religious matters, and God is displeased.

Having seen that God is displeased when men reject His commands, and that the New Testament forbids our following after man, let us consider some men who have been followed and the resulting conditions.

The German Reformation of the sixteenth century was largely due to the work of one man–Martin Luther. Others of lesser repute played a tireless role, and much was done prior to Luther’s time that laid the groundwork for him and greatly aided his efforts. Yet, very little visible progress was made until ninety-five propositions for discussion were placed by Luther on the door of the church building in Wittenburg. All who oppose the dominance and false teaching of the Roman Catholic Church should appreciate Luther’s work. Indeed he was a great and noble character. But does this mean that Luther ought to be followed in religion? In rebellion against Catholic totalitarian power, many did not go back to the New Testament and follow Christ, but they concluded that Luther was such a great man and had done so much for them that they would follow him instead. Of course, in following Luther they thought they were following Christ; but apparently they did not take enough time thoroughly to examine the scriptures to see if such was the case. Even Luther, in formulating his belief, did not go directly to the scriptures, but he depended on Augustine (354-430 A.D.), an uninspired man, more than any other individual. This placed at least two men and their own private interpretations between followers of Luther and the teaching of Christ. The result has been that in our day millions, while protesting Catholic sin and corruption, are far from New Testament Christianity. Following Luther’s leadership they teach faith only, a doctrine that is foreign to the New Testament, and hold many other positions that are just as contrary to the scriptures. If men had looked beyond Luther to the inspired scriptures, this problem would not exist.

Another great man to whom we are much indebted is Alexander Campbell. Campbell lived in the nineteenth century and possibly as much or more, than any other man was responsible for the preaching of the pure gospel during the first half of that century. As was the case with Luther, many thought Campbell was so scholarly and such a Bible student that whatever position he took must be right. A case in point is the missionary society of 1849. At least on some occasions prior to the forming of this human organization to do the work of the church, Campbell had pleaded for the all-sufficiency of the church to do its work. This would, of course, exclude human organizations such as the missionary society. Campbell, nevertheless, accepted the presidency of the society and promoted its use and growth. That many accepted the society solely because Campbell thought it was right is not doubted. Where are the men today who have followed Campbell and his associates? After the missionary society came instrumental music, and the parade of one false practice after another, all introduced by the same authority–some man said. “I like this and if you follow me and have fellowship with me you must accept it.” Look at the liberal Christian churches of today and you will see the results.

It has already been suggested that the practice of following men is not confined to one century. The young prophet r ejected God and followed the old prophet; men followed Luther instead of Christ: Christians of the century just past depended on Campbell for guidance instead of the Word of God. The same thing is happening today with the same sad and lamented results. Men seem to hold positions on vital Bible subjects merely because some preacher, elder friend or relative happens to see it that way. God has ever been displeased with such and the results have always been chaotic. Examples that follow show this to be true.

Division exists among some churches of Christ today because of Carl Ketcherside’s new doctrine (many others are also teaching it) that there are Christians in all the denominational bodies, and that we should ‘fellowship” them all. If these brethren had not been following Ketcherside on other matters, and had not exalted him to a position of ruler and giver of the law, there would be no special problem with his liberalism. People would simply study the scriptures, see that what he is teaching is false, and reject it. The same would be true of others.

In 1938, E. R. Harper said: “A congregation has no right to build anything larger than it is able to support….” Many con1gregations that believed this then would under no circumstances allow it to be taught now. Why? Obviously because brother Harper has changed positions and they are followers of Harper. Consequently, they reject the truth that he taught in 1938 because he has rejected it, and freely accept false teaching for the same reason.

In 1939, Guy N. Woods said: “This writer has ever been unable to appreciate the logic of those who affect to see grave danger in Missionary Societies, but scruple not to form a similar organization for the purpose of caring for orphans and teaching young men to be gospel preachers. ” Some of the same people who believed this and allowed it to be taught then have spasms when the same thing is taught now. Why? Because Guy Woods and others teach exactly opposite to what was taught in 1939, and men are following Woods and other preachers rather than the Bible. The result has been contention, division, heartache, and possibly the loss of souls for eternity.

The only hope for man is to look beyond present day religious teachers. Campbell. Luther, and all other men who may have been great, unto Jesus, “the author and finisher of our faith;” follow His New Testament, speak where it speaks, remain silent where it is silent, obey every command, and enjoy the blessed promises after awhile. This is my prayer for all people.

Truth Magazine VI: 11, pp. 9-10
August 1962