Truth Magazine

By Robert F. Turner

My first experience with one who questioned a “church treasury” was in 1943, in Phoenix, Arizona. While taking some exercise, I made chance acquaintance with an elderly gentleman and we walked along together. When we passed a small church building with no sign, I asked if he knew anything of those meeting there. He said the church of Christ met there, and he was one of the members. When I told him I preached for the Westside Church of Christ he said we were different. “You have a church treasury, we do not,” he explained. I asked if they ever collected funds for anything; and was told they collected funds recently to pay for a window the hail had broken. I got the picture! I told him our only difference was that we saw more things that needed to be done. We collected funds every week because every week we supported several gospel preachers, the assistance of needy saints, a gospel radio program, articles in the paper, etc.

The “Bottom Line” of a church treasury is the collective action of saints. If saints are to work as a team – on anything -there must be the essence of a church treasury: pooled means and abilities for the accomplishment of their task. If together they pull a wagon, the pooled energy is their treasury; if they gather canned goods for a poor family, while the pooled food is in their possession, it is their treasury; and if they pool a medium of exchange (money) by which such food is purchased, that is also their treasury. Although I feel certain some who have opposed a “church treasury” were actually opposing things done with the treasury (a very different subject), the real “issue” is whether or not saints are to work as a team on anything. We are not here discussing abuses of the treasury. That comes under the heading of the work of the local church.

We have said the church treasury is the pooled means and abilities of the saints making up that “team.” Let us expand a bit by a simple illustration. If some saints wish to assist a preacher, each one could send assistance to the brother, and only those who gave could be said to have acted. Nothing wrong with that (Gal. 6:6). But Paul gave order to churches (1 Cor. 16:1) and messengers were chosen of the churches to carry gifts (2 Cor. 8:23). We conclude therefore that various churches acted; i.e., various teams of saints. Before Paul could take wages of churches each team had to have wages to pay; and that involves team treasuries. A few members could bring paint, and paint the meeting place. They might create a psychedelic effect but they could put on the paint. But the whole church shares in the painting when funds from a common treasury are traded for a paint job. We can apply this principle to all works of the local church.

“Getting to the Bottom Line” on the nature of the church (previous articles) should convince us that ceremonial and sacerdotal worship of Judaism was based on “carnal ordinances, imposed until a time of reformation” (Heb. 9:10); and is not the worship of Christians. The “contribution” is not a sacrament, and is not an “act of worship” per se. We do not “give to God” in the same sense the Jews presented a gift at the altar. The local church is a God-given tool by which saints function collectively, and the collection of funds is a very pragmatic means of pooling means and abilities so the “team” may carry out its purposes. It is as necessary, for team activity, as “going to church” (i.e., to the place of assembly) is necessary for assembling with the saints. Neither of the overt acts, in and of themselves, are worship. Becoming a Christian we “dedicate” ourself to the Lord (2 Cor. 8:5), and all else is the result of that dedication – service in the Lord’s priesthood (Heb. 13:16).

“The collection for the saints” (1 Cor. 16:1), is from logeuo (not lego) and Deissmann (Bible Studies, pp. 142ff, 219f) shows that this word indicated a special collection for religious, military, or other purposes. It can not rightly be said to mean “put your money under the bed at home.” Of course, Paul corrects such a concept when he adds, “that no collections be made when I come” (v. 2b). Some have argued that this only authorizes gatherings for needy saints, and I would have to agree that this is the special purpose of the collection under consideration here. But we can prove churches gathered funds for other purposes (Phil. 4:15; 2 Cor. 11:8), and in the absence of further instructions as to how these collections were to be made, we believe it is safe ground to use the method described in 1 Corinthians 16. If not, why not? When brethren say this is the only purpose for church collection, they are ignoring the many other functions of saints collectively, which need funding.

How much should a saint place in the church treasury? “Each one . . . as he may prosper,” and, “as he hath purposed in his heart: not grudgingly, or of necessity,” says Paul (1 Cor. 16:2; 2 Cor. 9:7). But the questions continue: (1) Must one do all his giving via the church treasury? No! When one has given self to the Lord (8:5), obligations both individual and collective will be met. The care of one’s own is an obligation with spiritual overtones (1 Tim. 5:8,16), and must be met with a portion of one’s substance. There are individual obligations to assist teachers of the word (Gal. 6:6; 3 Jn. 5-8). (2) How can one determine the required contribution? By determining the need, measured by vision and use made of the church treasury. Church treasuries process more funds as the members are converted to greater works for the Lord. The greater the knowledge of and confidence in the work, the greater will be the contribution. But church treasuries are not for “saving,” they are for spending rightly.

I once had a man bring me his personal budget: salary, rent, payments, etc., and ask me to tell him exactly how much he should give to the Lord. I asked if he believed in visiting the sick, and he said he did. I asked, “How many times per week? “Till fifty visits?” He thought that would be exceptionally fine. So, the punch line: “you have made your fiftieth visit, and are coming home late Saturday afternoon, when you learn of a brother in great need. Is it right to say, ‘Hang on brother, I’ll put you on next week’s list? If you have the means of helping him then, is not this your duty and privilege?” He decided it was, and his question was answered. Love for God and “neighbor” are not parceled out by dollars. The set of the heart determines our giving, to God and to man.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 15, pp. 486, 505
August 21, 1986

By Wayne S. Walker

The congregation where I am a member and serve as local evangelist conducts two to three gospel meetings a year. I am privileged to work with other congregations in some four to six gospel meetings each year. In fact, I myself was baptized during a gospel meeting and I am sure that the same thing is true with many in the Lord’s church. Yet, over the years I have heard, and occasionally still hear, people who proclaim, “The day of the gospel meeting is over. Gospel meetings just do not do any good any more.” I reject this claim.

Of course, gospel meetings may not accomplish the same amount or kind of good that they once did. It used to be that all one needed to do was to have a gospel meeting in a community and with just a little announcement the result would be large crowds and often several, even many, conversions. That was in a day when people had little else to do but go to church services for social contact and were more religious-minded in general. Today, we have to compete with school activities, around-the-clock work shifts, recreation and entertainment opportunities, and television, as well as an overall religious apathy.

However, in spite of all this, I firmly believe that gospel meetings can still do good. If nothing else, they are a time for Christians to get together and share spiritual things. They can be a part of the local church’s program for the edification, strengthening, encouragement, and exhortation of the members. And, in addition to this, I am convinced that a gospel meeting can be useful in making contacts and teaching people in our work of evangelizing the lost – if we will put the proper effort into it.

1. Advertise! Advertise! Advertise the meeting! Put ads in all local newspapers. Get in touch with the religion editor and have a news story written about it. Make spot announcements on radio stations. Let people know that you are having a meeting! Print enough flyers for everyone to hand out. Put one up on every available (and permissible) bulletin board and in other spaces. Go door to door in some area and pass them out. This will cost money and take time, but those few who see, are interested, and come will make it worth the while and provide opportunities for further teaching.

2. Be specific in your advertisements. A card which simply says, “Gospel Meeting – bro. So-and-So, Speaker,” will likely whet the appetite of very few because they do not know the preacher from Adam. But a list of the sermon topics, provocatively titled, may spark someone’s curiosity and bring him or her out. Since visitors will likely not be able or inclined to attend every service, they can pick those subjects which will appeal to them and hopefully will elicit a positive response.

3. Invite! While mass advertising may bring in a few, most visitors come at the invitation of a member. Try this plan. A month before the meeting, ask each individual or family in the congregation to make a list of people they want to come to the meeting – say three names. Three weeks before, let each member extend a personal invitation to come to the folks they have chosen. Two weeks before, a local preacher can send a letter on church stationary inviting them to attend. A week before, all members should call their prospects on the phone to remind them about it. This may sound like a lot of work, but remember that we are trying to save souls which are precious beyond compare.

4. Follow up. Every visitor from the community to a gospel meeting should be visited as soon as possible. Each church needs to have visitor’s cards and/or a guest book to obtain the names and addresses of all visitors. A note may also be sent to thank the visitor for his presence, but only a personal visit truly lets the individual know that we are interested in him. During such visits arrangements can be made for filmstrips, home Bible studies, correspondence courses, or whatever other form of study is desired. But the follow-up visit is essential.

5. It should go without saying that all the members should support the meeting faithfully. The leadership of the church must insist that they do so. When a visitor comes and finds that the people who invited him are absent, he is discouraged. People who attend a meeting and see a lot of empty pews are hindered. Also, everyone should join heartily in the singing because dull singing can kill a meeting. The success is not totally dependent on the visiting preacher; every member has a responsibility as well.

6. Finally, do not look upon the gospel meeting as the sum total of your evangelistic efforts. People are not converted by a “gospel meeting” per se, but by sound teaching, and it is unlikely in our day of religious confusion and indifference that one would receive enough teaching in one gospel meeting to obey. However, the meeting might be an effective tool to provide sufficient motivation to respond for those whom we have already taught. It may also make contact with new people whom we may then teach and lead to the Lord. Personal work is definitely the key to success in the growth of the church.

Again, it is my conviction that the day of gospel meetings is not over, that a gospel meeting can accomplish much good when we give it the emphasis it deserves. Certainly not everyone is going to come and there are other ways we can go to them with the gospel. But let us not forsake the meeting. In fact, I actually think we ought to have more meetings, not less. This suggestion may not set well with some; yet, it stands to reason that the more we sow the seed through preaching and teaching the word, the more likely it will find its way into some good and honest heart and bring forth fruit. And, after all, that is our goal, is it not?

Guardian of Truth XXX: 16, p. 489
August 21, 1986

By Morris Hafley

Solomon rightly stated, “The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.” Is it any less true today than it was then? I know it was still true while the Lord walked on the earth. As we read of the Lord, we see His enemies flee when their arguments were destroyed. As He spoke with confidence and plainness, we see our Savior as bold as a lion.

It was true when the apostles began their work. For example they were forbidden to speak in the name of Jesus. However, they prayed for boldness and preached boldly the very name that they were commanded not to speak at all. Directly after his conversion, the apostle Paul spoke boldly at Damascus. This was only the beginning of his boldness in the Lord.

With this boldness came much persecution and even death to those bold speakers. Is this when we say, “Let me off”? Would that we could suffer death for the cause of our precious Lord.

When the righteous are bold the wicked flee. While Harry Lewis was preaching a meeting in Danville, Indiana a few years ago, we visited the home of a Disciples of Christ. As we were about to leave he drove up. He spoke very friendly until he found out who we were and that we wanted to study the Bible with him. Becoming very flustered, he began to leave and ordered us off his property and told us never to set foot on his or the church property again. We watched him as he walked ahead of us to his car, mumbling things we couldn’t understand. It was quite funny to watch a fleeing false teacher lock his car thinking he was unlocking it and then try to get in it (I told you he was flustered). Another Disciples preacher in Salem was, and probably still is, preaching that there are saved in all churches. I called to ask him about it. Almost immediately he became excited when I asked him about what he had been preaching. His answer was, “You’ll be surprised.” I said, “Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ Do you believe there will be people saved in all churches?” Again his reply was the same. He added, “AD you want to do is use what I say in the pulpit.” I asked, “If what you say is the truth what have you to fear?” No answer. He then said, “I know why you really called, it was to discuss the instrument.” I said, “No at all, but if you would like to, we sure can.” His reply, “I have to go,” and hung up. Rather he should have said, “I have to flee.”

Let us be bold and cause the wicked to flee. After all, do we not sing, “What need I fear when Thou art near?” and “What have I to dread, what have I to fear?”

Guardian of Truth XXX: 16, p. 488
August 21, 1986

By Weldon E. Warnock

Recently, a lady asked: “What is the difference between having a small group of people sing spiritual songs to a congregation of people at a funeral and having a group sing during worship services?” This is a good question! I have heard solos, duets, trios, quartets, small groups, and even the whole assembly, sing at funerals. Why may we have these arrangements at funerals and yet many of us object to the same arrangements as unscriptural during worship of the church?

In my judgment there is nothing unscriptural with God’s people singing any where, whether one or a thousand, providing it is done to God’s glory and for the edification of those who hear. In the New Testament individuals sang psalms. before the whole church. One would sing, and, then, when he finished, perhaps another one would burst forth in song and praise. I do not know the procedure or what all took place, but I do know Paul said, “How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm. . . ” (1 Cor. 14:26). “Everyone” would be only those who had a gift to exercise. Now, if brethren, individually, at Corinth were permitted to sing psalms, may we not do the same thing? If not, why not?

Lange, commenting on 1 Corinthians 14:26, says the meaning is that “he comes to church in a state of mind inspired by the Spirit, to produce and pour forth some song of praise” (Lange’s Commentary, Vol. 10, p. 294). Bengel stated, “Individuals had a psalm, wherewith to praise God” (New Testament Word Studies, p. 249). Thayer says “the phrase echein psalmon (hath a psalm, WEW) is used of one who has it in his heart to sing or recite a song of the sort, 1 Cor. 14:26” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, p. 675).

M. C. Kurfees wrote years ago, “Hence, so far as the mere question of the number of persons who may sing at one time is concerned, one person or any number of persons may sing God’s praise and impart instruction in the worship of God” (Gospel Advocate, May 15, 1913, p. 464). R. L. Whiteside, gospel preacher and Queries Editor for the Gospel Advocate for ten or more years, wrote, “To the Corinthians, Paul said, ‘When ye come together each one hath a psalm’ (1 Cor. 14:26). A solo is sometimes very effective; so also is a quartet. But no one wants either as a regular diet. In solos and quartets there is a temptation to sing for show, and a poor solo or a poor quartet is a mess” (Reflections, p. 372).

McClintock and Strong state: “As to the persons concerned in singing, sometimes a single person sang alone, but the most ancient and general practice of the Church was for the whole assembly to unite with one heart and voice in celebrating the praises of God” (Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 8, p. 738). We read further, “Each member was invited, at pleasure and according to his ability, to lead their devotions in a sacred song indited by himself. Such was the custom in the Corinthian Church” (Ibid., Vol. 6, p. 758).

Paul wrote, “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord” (Eph. 5:19). The American Standard Version translates the passage, “Speaking one to another.

The thought is not that each Christian communes with himself in song, but they speak to one another in letting others know of their joy, gladness, peace and feeling in the heart, as well as the great truths of the Bible in general. Paul also wrote, “. . . teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” (Col. 3:16). None of these passages teach how many must sing at one time or in concert. Kurfees said, “. . . we must not erect any one thing into a law, such as fixing the number who shall sing at one time. . . ” (Ibid.).

Motive is a factor that must be appraised as to the scripturality of any or all of our singing. Among denominations, singing, to a great extent, has become show, entertainment, pomp and formalism. Choirs, quartets, solos, etc. are to entertain the audience and to exhibit musical skill. Congregational singing is supplanted by these groups by and large and people become spectators instead of worshipers.

Kurfees again said, “. . we add that, while solo singing, as we have seen, is as clearly within the limits of New Testament teaching as is singing by any number of persons at all, still, as frequently carried out in practice, it becomes a sort of show for the public exhibition of the singer instead of being for the praise of God and for the instruction of the saints, and this of course, is a perversion of the divine purpose of singing. From this point of view, we sometimes find it expedient to discourage solo singing, and exhort all to sing in concert, which does not furnish the same temptation to such perversion; though it must be admitted that the singing, whether done by one person or by any other specific number of persons, or by all in concert, is sometimes perverted from its divine purpose. Assuredly Christians cannot be too careful at this point” (Ibid.).

Marshall Patton wrote, “I think it well to observe just here that in view of the more ornate and artistic type of singing with which we are accustomed, solo singing must be ruled out in our worship today. It would be next to impossible to keep such from converting the worship into a theatrical performance. History does repeat itself! This is not to say under no conditions and at no time could one person come before the congregation and present a spiritual message in song, being truly motivated by that which is spiritual, and which song was received by the congregation in the same spirit. However lawful such may be, remember that history shows that the regular practice of such makes it highly inexpedient” (Searching the Scriptures, June, 1986, pp. 5-6).

We see the danger of so-called “special singing” in the following quotations: “Sacred music must, in the primitive Church, have consisted only of a few simple airs which could easily be learned, and which, by frequent repetition, became familiar to all. . . . Their psalmody was the joint act of the whole assembly in unison. . . . An artificial, theatrical style of music, having no affinity with the worship of God, soon began to take the place of those solemn airs which before had inspired the devotions of his people. The music of the theater was transferred to the church, which accordingly became the scene of theatrical pomp and display rather than the house of prayer and of praise, to inspire by its appropriate and solemn rites the spiritual worship of God. . . . Thus it soon came about that the many, instead of uniting their hearts and their voices in the songs of Zion, could only sit coldly by as spectators” (McClintock & Strong, op. cit., Vol. 6, p. 758).

We conclude, therefore, that any number may sing in an assembly of the church, although I wholeheartedly concur with brethren Patton and Kurfees that such is highly inexpedient in the assembly for the reasons already stated. Having established the principle that solos, quartets, etc. are scriptural, we must also conclude that such types of singing at funerals are also scriptural, and due to the nature of a funeral and the circumstances involved, I believe that such singing is also expedient. If a few sing at a funeral to console and comfort the bereaved and edify those in attendance, they have done nothing more than what God has authorized.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 16, pp. 486, 501
August 21, 1986