Truth Magazine

By Aude McKee

One of the most basic problems in our divided religious world is a lack of appreciation for the authority of Jesus Christ. In some cases there is lip service paid to His authority, but when it comes to actual practice, there is a woeful lack of compliance. In this article we want to look at the extent of the Lord’s authority and the foundation upon which it stands.

His Authority Is Universal

In Matthew’s account of the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20), Jesus said, “All authority is given unto Me in heaven and in earth.” The words “all,” “heaven,” and “earth” emphasize the universality of that authority. And then the words that follow do the same. What justification could Jesus have for instructing His apostles to “teach all nations” if all nations were not included in the scope of His authority? In a debate between E.C. Fuqua and Thomas B. Warren in 1954, brother Fuqua affirmed the proposition that those in the world were not amenable to the authority of Christ. “While in the world,” Fuqua said, “people cannot be with or without a scriptural cause for anything, seeing they are not under Christian law, but under civil law exclusively.” It seems to this writer that if this were true, we might be able to go to heaven on the basis of works. Observe speed laws, be honest in the payment of taxes, etc., and so having met the requirements of the only law binding on us, we would stand before God free of sin. The truth of the matter is, all of us are duty bound to observe civil law because of the authority of Christ. No one in the world would be duty bound by God to observe civil law were it not for passages like Romans 13.

In Acts 2, Peter preached to Jewish people. After a number of arguments relative to Jesus’ Sonship, death, etc., he said, “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ” (v. 37). Many in the audience then cried, “What shall we do?” Their response to the sermon had to come as a result of a recognition of Jesus’ authority and the reply Peter gave to their question had to be obeyed for the same reason. Acts 2 shows clearly that Jews were subject to the law of Christ.

Then in Acts 10, the same preacher went to the house of Cornelius and delivered a message that resulted in salvation for those who obeyed it. These people were not Jews, they were Gentiles. But as you read the account of their conversion, you have to be impressed with the fact that their obedience sprang from a recognition of the authority of Christ over their lives and destiny. In fact, one of the first things Peter told them was that “God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him.”

In Romans 14:9, Paul wrote, “For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that He might be Lord both of the dead and living.” With this passage before us, we have added another dimension to our outlook. Jesus is Lord of heaven and earth, He has authority over both Jew and Gentile, and now His authority extends to both the dead and the living!

Writing to the Colossian Christians (3:17), they were told that “whatsoever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks unto God and the Father by Him.” “In the name of” means that all our words and deeds must have the Lord’s approval. “Words and deeds” cover a lot of ground, but if someone should think that our thoughts are not governed by the Lord’s authority, attention should be given to Matthew 5:27-28. Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. ” Jesus Christ has the right (authority) to look into the recesses of a person’s heart and judge those desires that might never come to light in overt action.

Perhaps Moses reduced this matter of Jesus’ authority and the extent of it to the simplest form possible in Deuteronomy 18:18-19. Peter quotes this passage in Acts 3:22-23: “A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; Him shall you hear in all things whatsoever He shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.” The words “all things whatsoever He shall say” and “every soul which will not hear that prophet shall be destroyed,” are too clear to be misunderstood.

The Lordship Of Jesus

When the subject of authority is under consideration, attention needs to be given to the word “Lord.” The Greek word means “master, ruler; one in possession of absolute power and authority. ” Jesus, in Luke 6:46, asked the question, “Why call ye Me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say?” In John 13:13, “You call me Master and Lord, and you say well, for so I am. ” In Matthew 22:41-46, we learn that David called Jesus “Lord,” and this really caused the Jews a problem. Jesus wanted to know if the Christ was the son of David, then how could David call Him “Lord”? He was indeed David’s son (in the flesh), but He was at the same time David’s Lord because He is the Son of God. Then in Philippians 2:5-11, there is a passage that deals both with the humiliation of Jesus and His authority. In verses 5-8, we are told of His becoming man and of His obedience even unto death. The following verses (9-11), tell of His exaltation and the authority He now possesses. As a result of the fact that He has been given a name that’s above every name, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things in earth, and things under the earth. And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

The Expression Of Christ’s Authority

The metropolitan government of Nashville has authority over all of Davidson County. There are hundreds of intersections where thousands of automobiles converge every day. If the government had no visible way of expressing its authority at those intersections, Nashville would be a mess. So stop lights are installed and traffic moves pretty well as long as people understand and respect those signs. In religion, Heaven must command and man must obey or chaos will reign. We have learned that Jesus is Lord, but the question facing us just now is how does the Lord express His authority to man? In Hebrews 1:1-2, we are told that “God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in the times past to the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son . . .” God’s written expression of authority in the past was made known by the Old Testament Scriptures. However, in this passage we are told that now it is different. God’s spokesman in our time is Jesus Christ. When we turn to Hebrews 9:15, we are told that Jesus “is the mediator of the New Testament. . . .” The Old Testament is God’s Word, but the laws of that document have been nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). As we learned a moment ago, Moses (the one through whom God gave the Ten Commandments) himself said that Christ was to be heard in all things, and anyone who would not listen to Him would be destroyed. We need to recognize that the New Testament is Heaven’s way of guiding all who live on this earth, and none can ignore it and at the same time show respect for the authority of Christ. Indeed, Jesus has all authority in heaven and on earth, He has the right to command both Jew and Gentile, all our words, deeds and thoughts must be brought into harmony with His Will, and not only the living but also the dead are subject to His authority. Jesus’ authority is expressed in the New Testament and to that book we must turn, believe it, love it, and obey it in order to go to heaven when we die.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 3, pp. 75, 77
February 6, 1986

By Robert F. Turner

In his book, How Christianity Grows in the City, Alvin Jennings says the first century saints of a city met for worship in small “house churches,” and all such churches of a city were under one group of elders. If this plan is followed he says, “The church, the treasury and elders will be one in the urban area.” Further, “Congregational autonomy will begin to fade within the city and individual congregational growth consciousness will give way to the overall growth of the urban church with all its congregations regardless of their place of assembly.” In a previous article we discussed “One Eldership Over Many ‘House Churches,”‘ and in this article we examine scriptural uses of the word “church,” and what is meant by such expressions as “the church in their house” (Rom. 16:5).

The book places great emphasis upon the vast number of saints in Jerusalem, and the physical problems of getting such a number together for worship. The author is a bit careless with his statistics: p. 31 says 50/100,000 saints before the close of the first century; p. 50, 100,000 by 50 A.D.; and p. 74, 50/100,000 by the time of the dispersion (surely meaning the destruction of Jerusalem). (1) We do not believe the validity of worship depends upon all saints of a local church being assembled at the same time or place. (2) The early multiplication of saints at the beginning of the church was a special situation; and there is no reason to suppose they suddenly formed independent congregations, and by the Lord’s Day following Pentecost were “gathered about the Table” Texas style. (3) The “all things common” (Acts 4:32) and treasury “at the apostles’ feet” (v. 37) were not patterns for all time, as is apparent from later information. It was some time after Pentecost before deacons were appointed (6:1f); and we first read of elders ca. 45 A.D. (11:30).

We believe the practice of the first saints was consistent with truth as a whole, but those who cite the early Jerusalem situation to further their special cause may find they have bitten off more than they can chew. Since the first converts made up the universal body of Christ, how about a universal treasury? Truth is, we do not know many details about the worship and work of early saints in Jerusalem. Jennings says “the patterns given to us through Jesus Christ and His special spokesman, the apostles, (must) be followed explicitly.” But patterns are not established by assumptions concerning some portion of revelation. We must search the total record for a pattern.

The “house churches” of How Christianity Grows . . . are sometimes churches, sometimes not churches. The author equates them with “groups” and “assemblies”; and says in large cities of the first century many such groups made up each city church. He says each church should be independent and autonomous, but his drawing of the “Urban Church of Tomorrow” (p. 64), shows churches with elders (no treasury), plus a panel of city elders who control the total city treasury. Independence and autonomy become empty words under such circumstances. Clearly, we must determine the use of “church” as it is applied to what the author calls “house churches.”

In the New Testament ekklesia is usually translated “church.” This collective noun groups its objects, the people of God, and treats them as one. “On this rock I will build my church,” i.e., my people, those who rest upon the divine foundation. Christ bought the church (Acts 20:28) when He died for all who will obey Him (Heb. 5:9). So, “the church” in its universal sense consists of the Lord’s people, metaphorically assembled in this term. The “grouping” does not necessitate their being physically assembled. They are “the general assembly and church of the firstborn (ones) who are enrolled in heaven” (Heb. 12:23). God “established” and “instituted” this church like He “instituted” marriage, or civil government. He made plans and gave instructions for this relationship. He also gave plans for brethren to act collectively, with overseers, servants, and a treasury (see previous article); and “church” in this sense is an organized body politic, which we usually call a “local church.”

But there are other scriptural uses of the term. Faithfulness is the essential ingredient for coming to Christ, and for remaining in His fellowship; hence “church” has a qualitative sense, referring to a certain kind of people. In Acts 5:11 “the church” is distinguished from “as many as heard these things”: viz., from some other than the saints. And the word may also be used in a distributive sense. In Acts 9:31 “The church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria” refers not to some tri-state institution, but to saints in these three territories. (See ASV, and proper textual studies. Nestle’s text shows all verbs in this verse are singular.) One may speak of “the church in Texas” without implying there is an organized statewide institution. We have been slow to recognize the distributive use of “church,” but I am persuaded it is far more common than supposed. Try reading through Acts and think distributively (saints) when you see the word “church.”

There are four passages that speak of “the church in house” (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Phil. 2). This could mean “saints in – house,” in the same way we might write to a church, and make particular mention of close friends and brethren in their household. Nothing in this would imply they worshiped separately or were units of some metropolitan system. But “church in house” could refer to a local organized church, meeting in a private home. In this case Acts 14:23 and 1 Corinthians 16:1-3 would authorize oversight and a treasury there. Twice in my life as a preacher I have done resident work for such churches, meeting in a private dwelling places. Of course some early saints met in private houses; but it will take more than a string of Scriptures which use the word “house” to prove one group of elders should control all the money and direct activities of all the churches in a city. Remove assumptions, while keeping scriptural principles, and “church in their house” poses no problem.

One more suggestion. If you have the book How Christianity Grows in the City, try reading every Scripture citation given, and compare what you find in the Bible with its usage in the book. You will be amazed at where the author finds “house churches,” overseen by city elders. Our “church building” mentality could do with some revision, and more home prayer and Bible studies are certainly in order; but city elders are not the scriptural solution.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 3, pp. 71, 79
February 6, 1986

By Ron Halbrook

Among trends found in conservative denominational or “evangelical” circles during recent years is something called the “discipleship” movement. It is an effort to infuse a spirit of zeal, dedication, and discipline into denominational religion which has grown lax, lazy, and limber. This movement, also called “shepherding,” mixes well-known Bible principles emphasizing personal study, submission, and sacrifice with various techniques of psychological manipulation, self-hypnosis, and small group therapy. If this movement stopped with Bible principles and left off the pop psychology, it would be a healthy trend. As with denominationalism generally, there is poison and death in the pot (2 Kgs. 4:40).

Such trends often have a trickle-down effect among the people of God, some of whom drink too long and too deeply from the wells of denominational theology and literature. The Crossroads movement centered in Gainesville, Florida at the Crossroads Church of Christ reflects some characteristics of the so-called discipleship or shepherding idea. Faithful brethren have emphasized the need for personal evangelism on the part of all Christians (Acts 8:3-4). But some who are enamored of the discipleship shepherding concept speak of converting Christians into “disciples” and turning believers into “witnesses,” citing and perverting Acts 1:8. The idea of assigning someone to monitor every step of a new convert and instructing the new convert to “report in” to his “teacher” in a “teacher-to-disciple” relationship is not biblical, but is a phase of the new crusade.

The end product is a shallow, unbiblical faith in men above God, and loyalty to men above Christ. Some are attracted to the campaign because of its apparent “success” rate, but true success recognizes first the standard of God’s Word and then our responsibility to faithfully proclaim it. The results in terms of the number of people reached is in the hands of God through the means which God provided – the power of the pure, unadulterated gospel of Christ (Rom, 1:16; 1 Cor. 3:6-15). The glow of zeal lures some brethren into the “discipleship” campaign – “they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge” (Rom. 10:2). For further study, read the following article by Hugo McCord from the Gospel Advocate, 19 Dec. 1985, pp. 753, 756.

Discipleship

Hugo McCord
Midwest City, OK

Primarily a disciple is a learner. Biblically, a disciple is more than a learner; he is a follower and an adherent of his teacher. One reads of the disciples of Moses, Isaiah, John the Baptist and Jesus (Isaiah 8:16; Matthew 15:1; John 3:25; 9:28).

Jesus explained the process of making disciples, “They shall be taught of God. Every one that has heard from the Father, and has learned, comes unto me” (John 6:45). His final directions (Matthew 28:19,20) were for His apostles in going to all nations to do three things: (1) make disciples, (2) baptizing them and (3) teaching them.

The book of Acts tells how the apostles followed the Lord’s instructions: (1) disciples were made, (2) were baptized and (3) were taught in Jerusalem, Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, Corinth and Ephesus (Acts 2:36-42; 14:21, 22; 18:4, 8, 27; 19:5; 20:28).

Notwithstanding the clarity of the Lord’s commands and of the apostles’ examples, a movement has arisen among us changing the terminology and order of the three specifications in this way: (1) make converts, (2) baptize them and (3) disciple them. A leader writes that Jesus’ order “was not to ‘make converts’ . . . but to ‘make disciples.”‘ Thus he is saying that making converts is one thing while making disciples is something else. Where Jesus listed ‘make disciples” as item (1), some are now listing it as item (3).

In the new movement a convert is placed under the supervision of a mature Christian, called a “discipler,” who is to guide and nurture the new Christian until he himself becomes a discipler, and so reproduces himself. “All of” a new convert’s “mind, words and actions” must be conformed “to that of his teacher” (the discipler).

The word Jesus used for item (1), matheteuo, make disciples, never appears in the New Testament for, item (3), where the movement places it. The form (active) in which the word appears in Jesus’ command occurs only one other time in the New Testament where it corresponds to item (1) of Jesus’ words: “And when they had preached the gospel to that city (Derbe), and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, and to Iconium, and to Antioch” (Acts 14:21).

What follows items (1) and (2) (making disciples, and baptism understood) is not a discipling process (which the new movement teaches), but a guiding process by teaching (Acts 14:22) corresponding to Jesus’ item (3): “Confirming the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith and that through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God. Thus according to Luke the new converts of Acts 14:22 had already been discipled, and now were to be guided and nurtured.

Illustrative of the new movement’s altering Jesus’ order is the example of an Abilene Christian University coed. She had become a Christian at age 12, and now, eight years later, was in Scotland doing missionary work for a three-month period. She much appreciated a missionary wife there, and reported, “Sister has lovingly discipled me all summer.”

The necessary work of guiding a new convert is very important, but the ACU coed was not a new convert. The two Christian ladies in Scotland strengthened each other, but properly speaking neither discipled the other. All Christians are to “exhort one another, and build each other up” (1 Thessalonians 5:11), but the idea of assigning a supervisor, a discipler, on whom the new convert is to be dependent, is not a New Testament teaching.

The Lord’s wisdom did not entrust the holy work of supervising, shepherding Christians as sheep, and watching for their souls to a discipler, but to the elders (1 Pet. 5:1-5; Acts 20:28). Actually the new movement effectively supplants the eldership, for it is contructed in a oneunder-one relation, not on a plurality of elders (Acts 14:23).

Further, the new movement says a discipler must limit his work “to a few individuals,” for “discipling can only take place with a few people.” On the contrary, biblical discipling Jesus directed “to all nations” (Matthew 28:19). The apostles’ discipling on the day of Pentecost converted 3,000 (Acts 2:41). An exponent of the new system was asked, “Where does pulpit preaching fit into your plan?” He gave an honest answer: “It doesn’t.” This is contradictory to 1 Corinthians 1:21.

If only a few can be discipled, who decides who is to be selected? Who decides when the process is completed? What is done for the non-discipled? Can a non-discipled Christian be saved? One Christian, hearing of the new system, inquired, “What shall I do? I have been a member of the church for 30 years, and a class teacher for 21, and I have never been discipled.”

The new system holds that discipling is not advised “between people of the opposite sex.” On the other hand, biblical discipling had no gender barrier (“both men and women,” Acts 8:12).

Under the new system “witnessing describes a way of life,” whereas under the New Testament, witnesses “were chosen before God. . . who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead” (Acts 10:41). The new plan wrongly applies Acts 1:8 to Christians today: “You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and to the ends of the earth.” This was addressed directly to the apostles. The new plan puts a weak Christian in “direct dependence” on his discipler who becomes his “closest brother.” These two “pray together and share their insights of God’s word.” They enter a “prayer covenant.” Then (in a class situation) one is to “tell who (sic) you prayed with and share one of your prayer requests that the rest of the class can pray about.”

The new system transforms Paul’s words, “The things thou hast heard of me . . . commit to faithful men who will be able to teach others” (2 Tim. 2:2) to mean a discipler “instructs that close brother whom he had discipled to disciple others.”

The new system affirms that not many Christians are worthy to be “disciples.” However, in the inspired writings, no difference can be found between a disciple and a Christian (Acts 2:41; 4:4; 6:1; 11:26). They are synonymous terms. One could as erroneously say that not many disciples are worthy to be called Christians.

Actually, if one can find a biblical emphasis of one term above the other, it would be that “Christian” is more meaningful than “disciple.” After the book of Acts, God’s people are not called disciples. A misplaced emphasis on the word “disciple” calls to mind Alexander Campbell’s mistake. He held that since God’s people were called disciples before they were called Christians the former term is preferable. Campbell’s mistake lives on today in the “Disciples Church.”

Another error stemming from the new movement is the setting of a probation period for discipled Christians until they may be appointed evangelists. A congregation of 1,000 members in 43 house churches reported their evangelist had “baptized and discipled to Christ for three years” five brothers before their “being appointed evangelists.” Moreover, a gospel preacher of more than 30 years experience all over the world with hundreds of conversions to his credit, placing membership with the congregation, was asked to be an apprentice before he could be appointed an evangelist.

The new movement emanates from deep devotion and is characterized by fervent work. Actually, however, it crystallizes itself into a church within a church, stirring friction. The dedication of the disciplers executing their new plan is wholly to be admired and praised. May those not espousing their errors pray sincerely for them and emulate their enthusiasm, bearing “them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge” (Romans 10:2).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 3, pp. 80-81
February 6, 1986

By Webb Harris, Jr.

I am in no wise an expert on the field of door-to-door evangelism. No doubt, some who will read this article were knocking doors many years before I was born. However, I feel that I have some invaluable information to impart to any and all who are seeking effective ways to take the gospel of Christ into their community.

The practice of knocking doors is an oft-maligned art. Many brethren are convinced that the only fruits door-knocking will ever bear are slamming doors and sore feet. Who hasn’t been exposed to the horror stories of cruel and unusual persecution inflicted on personal-workers who roused the neighborhood atheist from his afternoon nap? “We shouldn’t bother folks,” “it doesn’t work,” and “we tried it once without success” are familiar Phrases. Question: Is door,-to-door evangelism really a waste of time?

Here is a parable: When Jim-Bob was a little boy, he plucked an unripe orange from a tree, bit into it without peeling it and wore a grimace until bedtime. He wondered how anybody could cat an orange. He marveled that people actually send whole crates to their northern relatives as gifts. He promised himself that he would never touch another orange so long as he lived. Today Jim-Bob is 58 years old and still insists that oranges are the most wretched fruit found south of the Yukon. Can you diagnose Jim-Bob’s problem? He ate the orange incorrectly and blamed the orange! Accordingly, it is not impossible that some brethren who have knocked doors in the past to no avail, have knocked “incorrectly.”

Knocking On Doors In Umatilla

I am convinced that door-to-door work is far from a “waste of time.” Quite to the contrary, I believe it is a highly effective way of finding honest and sincere hearts in our cities. Brethren, even if you knocked for five years without one response, you would have accomplished much. You would have been fulfilling the great commission of Mark 16 “go” and “preach.” While many of us are calling to the world to “come” and “hem,” door-knockers are busy going and preaching. Likewise, you would be building a reputation of militance and unashamedness for the church of Christ in your community. People remember who knocks on their door! And remember, that is what would be accomplished even if you never set up one Bible-study.

We have tested door-knocking in Umatilla. About five Christians get together twice a month to go out into the community to knock doors. None of these saints has had any experience whatsoever with door-to-door speaking. But they have committed themselves to do it, and to do it right.

Brethren, we hadn’t been knocking doors for two months before we were invited to show the Jule Miller filmstrips to the Thursday evening gathering of the Church of God in town. We’d knocked on the door of one of the “deacons.”

On one occasion we set up four home-studies in 45 minutes. On another outing a middle-aged couple invited us to study with them one evening per week. In a month’s time, we baptized the wife. Three months after that, we baptized the husband. Both remain faithful and are budding personal workers. On yet another occasion a family of Pentecostals, who were just starting their own “church” in town, asked us to show the aforementioned filmstrips to their. group. These studies are underway right now. And, believe it or not, we have not yet had to cope with our first slammed door.

Having heard nothing but disdain for door-knocking for as long as I can remember, I never cease to be bowled over by the wonderful responses we are met with. Friends, God blesses His children’s efforts to share the truth.

Some Tips

There are four very important things that I have learned in my door-knocking efforts that I would share with anyone who is contemplating such work. Again, I do not claim to be an expert, but I write from my personal experiences.

(1) Two is enough. Sometimes a preacher wants to start knocking doors, so he asks for all interested members to meet at the building at 11:00 Saturday morning. That morning only two show up. And instead of going out into the community with the tiny number they have, they conclude that there isn’t enough interest on the part of the brethren to keep up the “program.”

Brethren, don’t expect 9/10 of the church to be enthusiastic about door-to-door work. Most people think it’s a waste of time! If only two members are interested, then two will have to be enough. With God’s blessing, you’ll soon make believers out of more members.

(2) You must get inside peoples’ houses. When I write about door-knocking, I am not writing about leaving tracts on the door-mats of the community. I believe that is to blame for much of our disenchantment. We’ve hung tracts and meeting announcements on door-knobs for years, with no response. And then we cry that people aren’t interested in the truth. Come on, brethren! That which I find on my door is usually read flippantly and then disposed of; and I am not about to accuse my neighbor of apathy and/or worldliness when he does the same.

We have got to get inside peoples’ houses. We’ve got to sit down with them at the kitchen table. We’ve got to talk with them in the living room. It’s impossible to preach an effective sermon to a nose sticking out through a crack in the front door. Get inside! But how do we get inside? Read on.

(3) You do not need a spiel, you have the gospel. Somewhere along the line we -got the idea that we had to have a “sales-pitch” to get people to listen to us. We memorize speeches and spiels and then fire away as soon as the door opens. Do you know what the fellow at the door thinks? He thinks you’re selling something. And he’s not interested.

Friend, get yourself the first lesson of a Bible correspondence course, or the Jule Miller filmstrip brochure, or a printed invitation to services, or what have you. Take along your pocket New Testament. Ask God’s blessing and go knock doors. You’re not a high-pressure encyclopedia salesman, you’re a Christian concerned about souls and looking for an honest heart. When someone opens the door, tell them who you are and where you’re from and ask them if you can come in and talk with them about the course, the filmstrips, etc. Ask them if and where they go to church and how often they study their Bible. And listen to them! They are tired of the Watchtower’s Witnesses, who come to their doors and treat them like utter imbeciles.

(4) Lower-income families and minority groups are most receptive. The less affluent and white the area, the more receptive and friendly the people seem to be. I always assumed that blacks would be a little hostile to a couple of white door-knockers in their community. How wrong they’ve proven me to be! Brethren, I don’t ask them if I can “come in”; they tell me to “come in” before I can open my mouth. Mark 12:37 says, “and the common people heard Him gladly.” Jesus said, “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes” (Matt. 11:25). It is frightening that the Lord’s church can exist in a town for 50 years and neglect an entire section of the populace (blacks, hispanics, the poor, etc.); and all the while, that neglected portion would be the most receptive of all!

Undoubtedly, there are many other things that can be written and points that can be made on this topic. I am interested in the thoughts and experiences of others and am eager to learn more effective ways of taking the good news door-to-door. If you have helpful comments, submit an article. If you are moved to try this type of work, write me about your efforts. We are fellow-workers in the kingdom of God.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 3, pp. 76-77
February 6, 1986