Truth Magazine

By Bill Cavender

Dear brethren __________ and ___________,

In your letters to me, printed in the Guardian of Truth, July 4, 1985, you both mention experiences you have had with brethren regarding financial matters, feeling that you were unjustly treated in the matters of travel expenses, and in regular wages which were promised but never paid. You stated: “Then came the chore of finding a church that would take a beginning preacher. I spent over $300.00 driving around ‘trying out’ that I was never paid for, just for my expenses. I drove from _________, Texas, one Friday night to preach the next day, on Saturday night, over 900 miles, for a church in Kentucky. I just barely had time to look over my notes and shave before preaching. One of the men gave me $20.00 and said, ‘This is for your trouble.”‘ . . . “Let me give you a personal example of how brethren treat preachers . . . I was hired two years ago. I was told they could pay no more than $400.00 per week (that’s total, everything!), because of their big building payments. But they would evaluate my salary every year and do better when they could. I believed it and with the extra income from our business we felt we could get by. Well, two years have gone by and no raise. But we are making extra payments on our building. Last year we made 8 extra payments on the principal! Bill, I learned one thing-you have to deal with the brethren when you first move, because after you get there, you are at their mercy.” You also tell me of the church who would pay $21,000.00 a year to a man, but would raise it to $23,000.00, a year if they could get a certain preacher. This preacher told the brethren he would have to have $32,000.00 a year. This upset some; others said, “We can do better,” so they paid him $28,600.00 and he accepted. You say, “If he had accepted their offer of $23,000.00, he would have been stuck. I wonder? If the brethren could pay $28,600.00, why didn’t they do it in the first place? It’s the old story: ‘the best preachin’ for the least pay.”‘

Such matters as both of you relate to me are widespread and all too common. They are practices which have been prevalent among many brethren and churches all these years and will continue to do so. Being young men, and dealing with brethren in financial matters, you are seeing and experiencing what all old preachers know, for we have traveled the same road with the same kind of brethren here and there. The only way such misunderstandings, injustices and practices will be corrected is for brethren to talk over such matters, considering them fairly and justly (Mic. 6:8; Matt. 7:12), and to be taught by sincere preachers and godly, understanding elders and brethren regarding what is right and needed in the support of preachers. Yet there is hardly an area of fellowship and relationships between brethren, churches and preachers which is fraught with more disagreements, misunderstandings and hard feelings, and judging of motives, than that of financial support to preachers. If a preacher undertakes to teach, guide and educate the brethren in these matters, then he is generally accused of “preaching for money,” “all he talks about is money” (even if he preaches one sermon on the subject), “he is money-hungry,” “the preacher is wanting a raise,” etc. Rarely ever do you see or hear elders, deacons and discerning brethren, who try to understand Bible teaching and preachers’ needs, teach and talk with other brethren about these matters. In so many instances it is very difficult for preachers, themselves, to be objective entirely in these matters, for we often feel we are mistreated and are being dealt with unfairly. The brethren think he is being paid enough, is making enough (“or more than he’s worth!”), should be satisfied, and should not be teaching upon or talking about such matters. They really do not know his needs nor understand the expenses he has or costs involved in his work as he gives his “full-time” to preaching and working in the Lord’s kingdom, depending upon brethren to be fair, just and understanding in financial matters.

Your trip from Texas to Kentucky and return, 1,800 miles in all, for $20.00 from an individual, and your having to spend over $300.00, not reimbursed, in trying to locate with a church, are common experiences among preachers, especially young preachers. Brethren will come much nearer mistreating a young preacher in the matter of finances than they will an older man. Younger preachers are less likely to bring the matter up with brethren, and to try to reach an understanding, than older preachers are. We have all had similar experiences and, at times, still do. Some brethren are unthoughtful, saying if they had no part in inviting a man to come and preach, then they have no part in his worrying about any remuneration to him. Some are just so unthoughtful and unconcerned that it never dawns on them that a man should be compensated and reimbursed for his expenses. Some are just stingy. They protect “the Lord’s money” and set on the treasury as if it were theirs and as if preachers were robbers. (Rarely ever will you find a generous, liberal giver to the Lord’s work who has this disposition.) Some think preachers do not need or should not have much money, thinking wages to preachers are “gifts” which are given by good-hearted brethren to men who really do not earn anything. The old saying that if God will keep ’em humble, the brethren will keep ’em poor is more truth than fiction in many cases and in the thinking of many brethren. Some never bother to try to learn the needs, expenses and situations of preachers. They want to pay him about “what the average member earns,” when there is no average member, no way of averaging the members, and what is really meant is to pay him about what the lowest paid person in the congregation is paid. Some take a sort of fiendish delight in being able to hold a financial axe over the heads of preachers. They can cut his pay, refuse to increase his wages, withhold their contributions and cause his work to look bad or diminish, all if they do not like him, or find fault with him or his family, or become offended because of some truth he tries to teach them or some rebuke he administers to them.

On the other hand, there are some brethren who are very thoughtful, and very generous to and with preachers. They realize the extra expenses preachers have; the various works that preachers participate in and contribute to; the tremendous expenses we have with automobiles (wearing one out every 3-5 years, and they are expensive to purchase now); entertaining expenses as we have young people, older people, etc., in our homes continually; extra clothing; continual expenses with books and office supplies; church contributions (for in most every case the preacher and his family will be among the very top contributors in the local church, if not the very top contributor according to his income); health insurance; social security (which a church cannot legally pay for a preacher; a church may legally pay his health insurance premiums); plus many, many other financial obligations, which may include house payments (if he purchases his own home-and which he should do if at all possible), caring for elderly parents or sick, needy relatives, etc. Some brethren want preachers to have life-long security and financial independence, and realize he must be paid enough to provide for insurance, pension, social security, housing, etc. But thoughtful, generous, caring, discerning brethren as I am describing in this paragraph, are in the minority. The vast majority of brethren do not care. And of that minority of brethren who do have to do with and determine preachers’ wages, the majority of them are of the first group. The majority of brethren in each congregation of any size and numbers really care less nor do they ever really give serious concern to the needs of preachers. That is why stingy, unthinking, selfish brethren could give you $20.00 for a 1,800 miles round trip. Such thoughtless brethren do not deserve a preacher to work with them. If these men had been fair and just men, they would have had an understanding with you about payment of your expenses before you came there to preach. Often brethren think they have no obligation to pay a man if he asks for the chance and opportunity to preach and to work with them. But if they initiate the appointment and invite him, then they feel obligated. They ought to feel responsible and obligated either way it is done. We ought not be the kind of people who “want something for nothing” in the Lord’s work and service (2 Sam. 24:24; 1 Chron. 21:24).

All preachers have these experiences. I remember holding a fifteen days’ meeting, three Sundays, once. The brethren paid me $86.00, and my car expenses for the meeting were more than that. I was in college, had a wife to support, a car to pay for, etc. But I said nothing. One time brethren asked me to hold a three weeks’ meeting in a schoolhouse, hoping to establish a church in that community. It involved three Sundays. I drove a car all those days driving the countryside, visiting, teaching classes, talking to people, knocking on doors, inviting folks, etc. The brethren paid me $150.00. I’ve held numbers of meetings, funerals, weddings, etc., where brethren do not begin to pay enough for a week’s wages, plus travel and other expenses for the meetings, and nothing for a funeral or a wedding.

Many years ago I drove about 1,600 miles round trip from Texas to Tennessee to hold a meeting, two Sundays, and eleven days’ meeting. I lost two weeks’ wages at home, total of $180.00, and the brethren paid me $100.00 for the meeting. So I lost $80.00, plus all my car expenses for 1,600 miles, to hold them a meeting. I decided to write them and just tell them about this, even if I made enemies out of them. They sent me another $150.00 and apologized. That was the first of ten meetings I have held there, and I hold one there every three years!

Some years ago a rich brother in East Texas phoned me in Port Arthur, wanting me to come to conduct a funeral for his brother who liked me and who had died suddenly. I went, 230 miles one way, 460 miles round trip. I never even got a thank you note. While I was in that town, the day of the funeral, my wife phoned me to tell me that another brother had died in Fannin County, Texas, and they wanted me to come conduct his funeral. So late that afternoon, after the first funeral, I drove on for the next one the next day, about 150 more miles one way. The deceased brother was well-to-do but noted for his “frugality.” I later got a “thank you” note from his wife but no money. One time a brother died in Montague County, Texas. The family phoned me in Port Arthur, wanting me to conduct the funeral. I went, 400 plus miles one way, over 800 miles round trip. They were a poor family. I was glad to go. I didn’t even get a “thank you” note.

I held a meeting for a big church, 300-350 members, in a large southern city some years ago. I flew from Houston to this city, lost two Sunday’s pay, paid for a round trip ticket, and was put in a motel out by the airport. The preacher told me to enjoy staying there, to eat what meals I wanted and charge them to the church, and each evening a different family would come by for me to take me out for a meal or to their home. He was in law school so he couldn’t be with me through the day and all the other brethren were working. So I stayed nine days, held a Sunday through Sunday meeting, and was paid $200.00 for the meeting, as they had allotted $500.00 for the meeting and my motel bill and meals at the motel took $300.00 of that.

Once I was called to Louisiana to conduct a funeral, drove about 275 miles round trip, and never had a “thank you” note from the woman’s husband. They were Christians (?) but had fussed and fought for years, separated and divorce, remarried, and enjoyed making one another miserable. I suppose it was really worth nothing to him to get a preacher who knew them to come and conduct a funeral service.

These are not isolated cases for preachers, for you/and or me, or for all who work with people where the monetary remuneration is on a voluntary basis. Brother Moses E. Lard once wrote, “In nothing can men be so readily seduced into wrong as in withholding in pecuniary matters that which is due, especially where the amount due is come in the form of voluntary offering” (“The Support of Aged Preachers,” Lard’s Quarterly, Vol. III, pp. 379-380, October, 1866). Most preachers are hesitant to say or teach very much about “giving,” or even to mention it to brethren when they have been mistreated, or at least think they have been treated unjustly. We just say nothing and go on, believing God will equalize the matter in His own good time and in His own good way. To so many brethren, God’s will on liberality, unselfishness, and a proper attitude toward material things and using them generously is “preaching on money.” Yet it is only through teaching of God’s will, and showing examples of generosity (as in 2 Cor. 8:1-5), will brethren ever do better. It still really “gets under my hide” and arouses my righteous indignation when I see brethren smoking, hunting, fishing, camping, traveling, buying their expensive campers and mobile homes, having their homes in the city and in the country (and on the lake), and living in luxury in general, and then see church contributions low and preachers not paid adequately and where they are even forced to almost beg for support. Many a good man doesn’t preach or has quit “full-time” preaching because of the stinginess of the brethren, and their lack of sacrifice, generosity, and spiritual perception and understanding.

Again, may I say to you both, that I do not intend to indict all brethren and congregations in these remarks. There are many churches and good brethren who are very conscious of preachers’ work and needs, and are very generous and thoughtful, both in their personal giving and gifts, and in the use of the church treasury. For years now I could not have held 15-20 meetings per year (and for two and onehalf years to hold 28-30 meetings a year) had it not been for thoughtful, generous congregations with whom I worked, and who did not worry about how much a preacher makes but worried about preaching the gospel and wanted me to do all of it I could do, and were willing to support me to do it.

It is inexcusable for brethren to fail to support a preacher adequately and according to promise in order to make extra building payments and “to save interest money.” I have heard that time and again. A building is nice to have (sometimes too nice and too extravagant-I heard of one church last year which split over putting an unnecessary expensive steeple on their new building, thinking more of this vain item of pride than unity among the saints in the congregation), but no building is necessary to the cause of Christ. No building has ever yet converted one sinner from the error of his way, and never will. Building meetinghouses is not building the kingdom of Christ in the world. Only the gospel preached by good men can do that, and we ought to first of all support the men who will give their lives to preaching Christ. I held two meetings in one place where brethren were not supporting the preacher and his family adequately. Between these meetings, two years, they had given him no raise. Many brethren wanted him to be paid better. Two of the elders did also, but the third elder, who tried to run the show, would not agree to pay the preacher more, so they just made extra building payments. During that second meeting, I told this elder his wrong and reproved him for his actions and attitudes, and reproved the other two for not standing up to him. He counted me as an enemy and had no use for me the rest of his life. The other two elders are still living, and are my friends, and appreciated what I did, and the preacher was thankful.

There is much truth in what you say that “you have to deal with the brethren when you first move, because after you get there, you are at their mercy.” Yet this is a cynical attitude for brethren to have toward one another, both brethren and preachers. For brethren to want as much preaching for the least cost is an ungodly attitude. And for preachers to have to bargain with brethren, so much preaching for so much pay, is a most distasteful, distrustful attitude. It makes a preacher to appear to be a “hireling” whether or not he is in his heart and/or in his practice, and he should not be in either. A good, sound, righteous preacher will pay for himself if he works hard and teaches the truth and loves people. In most cases contributions will increase enough to pay him well and give him wage increases regularly. And brethren should do that. “The laborer is worthy of his hire,” and that means not only when a church first begins supporting a man with wages, but it means to continue to pay him well for his good work. No sincere, true, hard-working preacher can be paid enough. I have never known such a man to be overpaid. I have known a good many men who should not have been paid at all.

There are some basic areas of understanding which brethren (churches) and preachers ought to have with one another. This is not a complete list of items to think about but practicing these would keep down many problems about wages to preachers. My suggestions are:

1. When preachers are invited to hold gospel meetings for a congregation, the church ought to consider a week’s wages for him (if he is to be there a week), plus his travel expenses, and they ought to notify him ahead of time what the church plans to pay and if this will be adequate. (In thirty-eight years of holding meetings, only two churches have ever told me ahead of time what they plan to pay me for a meeting, asking me if the amount was right, and only one church ever sent me part of the money ahead of time to help on the expenses.)

2. When churches invite preachers to come to talk with them about locating with them to work, they should take into account the travel expenses he will have, meals, lodging, or other expenses, and compensate him generously for all that. And even if a preacher initiates the contact and asks for the opportunity to talk with a church about working with them, then brotherly love would dictate that the church be mindful of his expenses.

3. Any and every church, in setting up a wage schedule with a preacher, ought to put it on a yearly basis, where he will be paid so much per year, and divide it into fiftytwo weeks, so he will be paid each and every week. This way a preacher and his family can have a dependable income, knowing what to expect.

4. Every preacher ought to own. his own home if at all possible. Sometimes a preacher cannot make a down payment on a home, or does not make enough to pay house payments. Sometimes a church cannot pay a man enough to work with them and make house payments. But church-owned housing is costly to preachers. Churches pay preachers less so they can pay for a church-owned house. Then preacher after preacher lives in the house, being paid less in money, for the value and privilege of living in the brethren’s house. When his work is done with the church, he has nothing; they have the house and the equity and value of it. The house gets paid for several times in effect while the preachers who live in it have no equity and no long-term benefit. A church-owned house really belongs to no one as brethren who bought it first pass on, move away, get mad and leave, and most care less anyway-and the preachers have nothing of their own by way of housing. Many churches could help a preacher own his own home by (1) advancing him enough money to enable him to make a down-payment and then gradually deduct this amount from his weekly wages, or (2) simply paying him enough that he could afford to pay for the house, arranging the down payment though relatives or friends or financial agencies.

5. All preachers who are paid wages by churches ought to have the “Minister’s Housing, Utilities and Home Furnishings” agreement with the church(es) that pay them, according to the Internal Revenue Service Code. The law provides that a preacher may deduct from his gross income such amounts as he spends on housing, home furnishings, utilities, repairs, taxes, interest on home loans (there will be some changes on this at the end of 1985), and does not have to pay income tax on those amounts. He must pay social security taxes on all his incomes, after business expenses, but he does not legally have to pay income tax on whatever he spends to provide housing for himself and his family. Only maid service and food is exempted from this amount. But he must have the understanding in writing with the church before each year begins, and the amount must be designated that he purposes to spend for “housing, utilities, and home furnishings” during the coming year. Whatever he does spend, he does not pay income tax on that amount. If a church pays his hospitalization insurance, he does not have to pay income tax on that amount (the law may change on this if the proposed Tax Reform Bill now being tossed about in Congress becomes law). Good books by good accountants can be purchased which deal with these matters regarding a preacher’s wages, income and social security taxes, etc. Brethren ought to be willing to cooperate with and help a preacher to have the best wage package he can have according to the laws of the land.

6. Brethren ought to consider a preacher’s wages each year. Good working churches and brethren generally prepare a yearly budget for a church, look at their work and plan it for the coining year, and review a preacher’s work and increase his wages yearly. His expenses, along with everyone else’s, are going up little by little each year. Honest, good, thoughtful brethren will think of these matters and will be helpful in every way they can to make a preacher’s work and life pleasant and fruitful. A happy preacher and family will make for a happy and diligent church as brethren love each other, and worship and work together in the cause of righteousness.

So your initial problems and mistreatments by brethren are common, my dear young brethren. We all have to face them, and go on doing the best we can. Someone, somewhere else, down the road of life, will be extra generous to you and make up for the lack you experienced here and there. It all evens out fairly well in the long run. Jesus’ statement is ever true (Mk. 10:29-30). And Psalms 37:25 and Matthew 6:24-34 are also truths of the Almighty, our Father in heaven. He cares, and He will bless you. Be faithful.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 20, pp. 614-615, 628-629
October 17, 1985

By Tom Roberts

All of religion is academic without a power or force to make it vital. This can be seen in the dead and sterile litanies of Roman Catholicism and other world religions. Whether the prayer wheel of the Buddhist or the counting of beads by the Catholic, such religion is “vain,” springing from the doctrines of men rather than the mind of God (Mt. 15:9). That which gives New Testament Christianity its life is the object of our faith, Jesus Christ: crucified, raised and glorified. “Faith to the saving of the soul” (Heb. 10:39) is that “obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5) which offers to God both worship and living that is patterned after His will. All men should realize that it is not mere “doing” or religious activity that God accepts. He is not obligated to accept our efforts, regardless of their zeal, just because we have performed them (Mt. 7:23). What we do, therefore, must be in accord with the will of God and must be accompanied with sincerity and love or it is empty and fruitless (Jn. 4:24; 1 Cor. 13: 1ff). With these thoughts as a preface, let us consider the cross of Christ and its meaning to the Christian.

The Misunderstood Cross

Paul accused the Athenians (Acts 17) of superstitious worship because of their idolatry. If this same apostle could see how people view the cross today, he would accuse us of the same practice. Many people, both in and out of the church, have come to revere a cross, made of “gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device” (Acts 17:29) as a talisman, a good luck charm or the focal point for the dispensing of God’s grace. Thus, the form of a cross is often used in architecture to provide a “sacred building” in which the teaching of Christ is ignored. It is often worn as an ornament or sign of authority among “clergy” who usurp the authority of Jesus. One is often elevated above an altar in cathedrals where the very divinity of Christ is denied. Shapes of crosses adorn many walls in homes where the name of Christ is taken in vain, if at all. The “sign of the cross” has become, for both the criminal and priest, a superstitious ward against evil and a mans of bestowing blessings and grace. So pervasive, in fact, is the adoration of the cross that we might just dispense with Jesus and retain a cross itself as the efficacy and essence of religion. Such foolishness would be equal to keeping the bath water and throwing out the baby. There is a great need today to understand the biblical intent of the cross of Christ.

The Cross: Both Real and Symbolic

Whatever else we understand about the cross, we must realize that there was a real cross, an intrument of torture and death. Jesus died a lingering and suffering death on such a “tree.” It matters little what shape the cross took. Whether simple or ornate, an “X” or a “T,” it was a means of capital punishment in the Roman world and Jesus accepted its embrace. But the “relic” of the cross is nonexistent and supposed “splinters of the true cross” are simple frauds foisted upon the simpleminded with no purpose to be served among believers. Yet the Bible retains much teaching about the cross and suggests a vital relationship between the Christian and the cross. Without falling into superstition, how may we receive the benefits of the cross today? How does the cross fit into the pattern of true worship?

To understand this, we must understand that the Bible uses figures of speech. Figures of speech are not intended to obscure but to elucidate. Such is true in this case. We are far removed from the real wooden cross but not from the meaning of the cross, its symbolism. The figure of speech to which we refer in our study is metonomy: a part of a thing standing for the whole. In this case, the cross of Jesus has come to include the entire spectrum of the gospel. So meaningful and complete is the imagery of this word that is not necessary to refer individually to the events of Jesus’ death or to the elements of justification, salvation and saving grace. It is enough to “preach the cross” (1 Cor. 1:18). Paul could say that he determined not to know anything save “Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). Those who opposed Jesus were said to be “enemies of the cross of Christ” (Phil. 3:18). It is in the cross of Christ that we should glory (Gal. 6:14). Care should be taken lest the “word of the cross” (1 Cor. 1:18), here equated with gospel preaching, should be mingled with the wisdom of men so that the “cross of Christ should be made of none effect” (1 Cor. 1:17). Is it not clear, therefore, that the cross stands for the whole message; metonomy, the part for the whole? With this properly digested, we can determine what the cross means to us today. Errors of men cannot obscure the beauty of the cross when we understand its true meaning. It is quite evident that God intended for the cross to have an impact on our thinking and our lives. Let us study that we may be blessed by the “word of the cross.”

The Meaning of the Cross

The cross of Christ tells us that sin is a curse. When used as an ornament around the neck, a cross says little about the ugliness of sin. But when we look at sin through the cross of Christ, we see sin as God does: ugly, deforming, condemning, separating man from his Creator. Sin is so terrible -that it made God send His only begotten Son to the cross to pay for its cost. Las Vegas does not present a true picture of sin. In the nightclubs and on TV, sin is glamorous, gaudy, fun, titillating, exhilarating. But sin causes deathseparation from God (Rom. 6:23; Isa. 59:1,2). Jesus became a curse for us, hanging on the cross (Gal. 3:13), and I should see this when I see the cross.

The cross of Christ tells us that a sacrifice for sin was made. Blood was appointed by God to be the atonement for sin (Lev. 17:10, 11). The blood of animals was insufficient to do the job of reclaiming the soul of man but the blood of Jesus was the perfect sacrifice. The Hebrew writer eloquently explores this subject when he speaks of the inadequacies of the blood of animals as compared with the “body prepared” for God (Heb. 9). 1 should see this when I see the cross.

The cross of Christ tells us that substitution was made. “The soul that sins shall die” (Ezek. 18:4). 1 sinned, therefore I ought to die. But thanks be to God that His grace permitted it to be different. As the story of Abraham and Isaac and the substitute ram for sacrifice foreshadowed it, the cross declares it plainly. Jesus Christ was sent by God to be a substitute for me. He took my punishment and death. “By his stripes we are healed” (Isa. 53). 1 should see this when I see the cross.

The cross of Christ tells us that atonement was made. God’s wrath is justly and divinely directed against sin and the sinner. The sinner dies and is without excuse because of his sin (Rom. 1, 2, 3). Sin is rebellion against a loving God and the wrath of God will be poured out as against Sodom and Gomorrah unless this wrath can be stilled. But man has no means to calm this wrath. How can we escape? The story of the cross has its roots in the Old Testament and the faint glimmer of hope expressed under the Law becomes a radiant light in the Gospel. When the high priest went into the Most Holy Place once each year, he brought the blood of an animal to the mercy seat on the ark of the covenant. If you will do a word study, you will find that the mercy seat is the seat of atonement-the place where the wrath of God is to be atoned. However, the blood of animals could not accomplish this great work; it remained for the blood of Christ to do it. When Jesus appeared before the throne of God with His own blood, God accepted this as atoning for the sins of the world. Atonement for sin has been made, and I should see this when I see the cross.

The cross of Christ tells us that reconciliation was made. So long as man was in sin, he could not draw nigh to God but, was in fact, an enemy. With our best intentions and greatest works, we could not bring about this healing of enmity, reconciliation. Since atonement was made by the sacrifice on the cross, it was possible for God to invite man back into a saved relationship. Paul said that this was the great work of the apostles, appointed by God to be ambassadors, entreating on behalf of God, “be ye reconciled unto God” (2 Cor. 5:18-20). Note that atonement precedes reconciliation and that God had to initiate them both due to our sinful condition. I should see this when I see the cross.

The cross of Christ tells us that fellowship with God is possible. Now that atonement has been made and reconciliation is possible, I can be forgiven. While atonement was made for the sins of the world, not all men will be saved. Not all will obey the call of the gospel through the ambassadors, the apostles, to be reconciled to God by the cross. To some, the word of the cross is foolishness; to others, it is a stumblingblock (1 Cor. 1). But if we reject the cross and the word of the cross, we reject reconciliation. If we reject reconciliaiton, we reject the peace with God that forgiveness brings. If we accept the cross, we may enter into a relationship with God reminiscent of that between Adam and Eve and God in the garden before sin intruded. Fellowship-a mutual sharing in heavenly matters-is found only in Christ. I should see this when I see the cross.

The cross of Christ tells us that I must become dead to the world and alive to God. “If then ye have been risen with Christ. . . ” (Col. 3: 1) presupposes that we have died with Christ. “For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God” (Col. 3:3). But how does one become dead to sin? “How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin” (Rom. 6:2-6).

Yes, we must crucify the old man of sin. We must walk in newness of life after having been buried in Christ. How is all this done? Paul said it is done when we are baptized. I should see this when I see the cross.

Let Us Take His Cross

There is a cross for us to bear. It is not a silver or gold ornament with no real meaning but that of vanity and false humiliation. The cross that Jesus bore was that of “obedience unto death, yea, the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:8). Our Lord said, “And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it” (Mt. 10:38,39). If we understand this, we can understand the cross of Christ. And all the ornamental jewelry and superstitious architecture in the world will not bring us any closer to the service of God unless we do understand it. Are you wearing your cross or bearing it?

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 21, pp. 641, 663-664
November 7, 1985

By M. Thaxter Dickey

Undoubtedly it’s not been long since you heard a sermon on prayer, read an article on prayer, or determined to improve your prayer habits. And that’s good because if there is a secret ingredient of success as a disciple of Christ, prayer is it. So how are you doing? How well do you understand the purpose, operation and practice of prayer? Here’s a quiz that may help you check up on your understanding of prayer.

What is Prayer?

Some define prayer as talking to God, and it is indeed a precious privilege to know that His ears are open to the prayers of the righteous (1 Pet. 3:13). Prayer is not a solitary pursuit. No one really prays who has no sense of God’s presence. We have time for conversation with our friends. Can we not find time at God’s invitation to converse with Him?

Others have defined prayer as a wish turned to heaven. It is not just wishful thinking or daydreaming but a concentrated effort to put one’s problems into the hands of Him who can do all things. Thus, Paul speaks of striving in prayer (Rom. 15:30; Col. 4:12). Righteous prayer which avails much is fervent and not a casual thing. It requires effort.

In a similar vein, Paul portrays prayer as a crucial tactic in the spiritual warfare (Eph. 6:18). It is the battleground upon which we conquer our spirit and subject it to God. Some complain that prayer is difficult and wish that it came easily to them and even suppose that it does come easily to others. But this is not the biblical picture. We pray only with great effort, for Satan strives to prevent us.

What is the Purpose of Prayer?

It is not to get for us that which we wish. Prayer is not an Aladdin’s lamp which we rub to get free wishes. God is not a gift machine which we manipulate to our own whims through prayer. This is the difference between magic and religion. Magic endeavors to bring the supernatural under the control of man, whereas religion is man’s effort to make himself pleasing to God. Prayer is thus conversation with God through which we conform our wills to His standards of holiness and come to agree with His plans for our lives.

Prayer is not for the purpose of debating with God, though Moses did apparently change God’s mind with his prayer for Israel (Ex. 32:9-14), and though prayer is effective, accomplishing much (Jas. 5:16), prayer is not out arguing or out thinking God. Who could be so presumptuous? The primary purpose of prayer is not to change God’s will, but to bring our will in line with His.

Prayer is not to be a sermon to either God or man. We may well follow the example of Bible prayers and rehearse that which God has accomplished and promised. But the purpose of prayer is communication of our spirit with God not the noble purpose of converting souls or teaching men. Effective public prayers are distinguished from those which leave us disinterested by this. They are spoken to God and not to an audience of men and thus lead us to think of God and not ourselves.

How Serious Is It If We Do Not Pray?

Prayerlessness is sin. Samuel recognized this at the time the Israelites offended him by asking for a king in his place. But he continued to pray for them rather than commit the sin of prayerlessness (1 Sam. 12:23). Prayer is a privilege, but it is also an obligation, and failure to pray is sin. We should so name it in our lives that we might be the more determined to pray.

Paul commands us to be vigilant in all manner of prayers (Eph. 6:17,18; 1 Tim. 2: 1). Failure to do so leaves us vulnerable to the onslaught of Satan. No sermon should ever be preached, or lesson taught, or trip begun, or task undertaken, or day begun without prayer. To do so is to foolishly risk temptation and spiritual, if not even earthly, failure.

What Hinders Our Prayers and Causes Prayerlessness?

The primary hindrance to prayer is sin. As Adam ran from God in the garden because of consciousness of sin, so we today avoid God in prayer when we are burdened with unrepented sins. If we love a sin more than we love God, He will not hear us (Psa. 66:18). When you have trouble praying, take spiritual inventory, and it’s likely you’ll find some sin lurking in the recesses of your soul. Root it out and your prayers will again flow to God.

1 John 3:22 teaches the positive lesson that God hears those who obey Him. By implication it teaches that He does not hear those who disobey Him. In the case of Cornelius God responded to the prayers of a righteous man who was not in a covenant relationship with Him. But His only answer was to refer him to a preacher that he might hear the gospel and have an opportunity to respond to it. I doubt that a man who is out of covenant relationship with God can effectively pray for recovery from illness or intercede on behalf of another.

James 1:5-8 reminds us that those who ask doubting will not receiving anything of the Lord. One who doubts will not pray as he should. He will not persist in prayer. Nor will God hear prayers offered in doubt. The infamous prayer of the agnostic perfectly illustrates the foolish ineffectiveness of the prayer offered in doubt. “God, if there be a God, save my soul, if I have a soul, from hell, if there be a hell.”

Another hindrance to our prayers is faulty personal relationships. Jesus taught that our sins are forgiven as we forgive others. This is the one lesson from the model prayer that He singled out for explanation after the prayer (Matt. 6:14,15). Many who would never drink or steal or murder will hinder their prayers by bearing a grudge against another. It’s a good bargain that God offers to us. If we forgive others their small offenses against us, He will forgive the great offenses we’ve committed against Him. Can you afford to reject so generous an offer?

Not just a lack of forgiveness, but any faulty personal relationship will hinder our prayers. Especially is this so of those with whom we are most intimate. Neither man nor woman can pray effectively if his heart is wrong against his spouse (1 Pet. 3:7), parents or children.

Another serious threat to prayer, as indeed it is to our entire relationship to God, is pride. Those who do not see their need will not ask. Further, God abhors the proud (Prov. 6:17) while His eyes are upon the humble. This is easy for us to understand. We enjoy helping those who ask us gently but resist those who are arrogant toward us. The temptation to pride is subtle. Some have even been known to grow proud of their humility. It is a difficult lesson for us to learn of our dependence and weakness and to ask as children that God deliver us. But we must become as children to enter the kingdom (Matt. 18:3).

When, How, and How Much Should We Pray?

Jesus tells us that we ought always to pray and never to grow weary in it (Lk. 18:2-8). Paul, a man of like passions to ourselves, taught the same lesson (1 Thess. 5:17). They did not mean that we were to give up daily life and become monks for the Lord’s sake, devoting ourselves in this way to prayer. Rather, they mean. that we should never lose the habit of prayer, that we should be ready always, at the blink of an eye as it were, to speak to God of that which is on our hearts. This requires living every day with a keen awareness of the presence of God.

There are times that are especially advantageous for prayer. It is a good idea to begin the day with prayer. This Jesus did (Mk. 1:35). A few moments at day’s beginning can set the tone for the entire day. And were there not many plans you had for this day that needed the Lord’s blessings? Likewise evening is a time for prayer. Were there not this day things which you need to speak to your Heavenly Father about before you sleep? Dare you sleep this evening before you’ve made yourself right with the eternal God who sees all things?

We ought to pray before important decisions as Jesus did all night before selecting the Twelve (Lk. 6:12,13). Our lives are filled with decisions, and the sad truth is that almost all of them must be made on the basis of inadequate information. Always after we’ve decided and set things in motion, we see more clearly the correct choice-and often it’s not the one we made. Can we, then, afford to neglect so great help as God offers?

We need to pray in times of temptation. If we prayed and thought of God during times of temptation we’d not fall prey to sin. Sin loses its power the moment we see God and His glorious holiness. The old adage about pausing and counting to ten in times of anger was good advice, for the delay before taking action allows more reasonable thoughts to prevail. Of even greater value than counting to ten is prayer. Jesus taught His disciples to pray that they might be kept from temptation. Do you fear temptation as you should? What is it that you pray will not come to you: poverty, old age, illness, ridicule, death? Above all these we should fear, and pray that we are kept from sin.

For What Can We Rightly Pray?

Remember, prayer is not just presenting God with a list of our desires and waiting for Him to fill our order. But we are encouraged to pray for specific blessings.

We are to pray for others. Paul commands us to pray for rulers (1 Tim. 2:1). This command indicates that God is active in the affairs of nations today. The best national defense is not missiles or ships but prayers. Likewise solutions to domestic problems are to be found, not in political rhetoric, but in prayer and a return to God-given values.

We are commanded to pray for our enemies (Matt. 5:43, 44). This is the unique characteristic of the Christian. He loves his enemy and prays for him. Jesus showed us the way by dying for us on the cross while we were yet sinful, unlovely and unlovable. But He died not just for you and me but for all men who will come to Him. Dare we hate and despitefully use someone whom Jesus loved so?

We should pray for the salvation of men as did Paul (Rom. 10:1). Our relationships with those outside the body of Christ would be far different if we spent hours in prayer over their soul’s salvation. We’d soon seek out opportunities to evangelize.

We can rightly pray for the spiritual growth of others (Phil. 1:9; Col. 1:9; 1 Thess. 1:11). I know I could benefit from more prayers on my behalf by spiritual men and women. Couldn’t you? Let us do for one another what we can. And this striving together in prayers will be of more benefit than all the “Hello’s” and “How are you’s” we’ve ever said, though we shouldn’t leave these unsaid.

We should pray more specifically than we do for the physical ailments of others. Those leading public prayers should make it a point to learn the names of those in need of prayers and make specific mention of them. And we can pray directly for their recovery. And in our prayers we need not limit God to working through the hands of doctors.

We are of course entitled by our relationship with God to pray for ourselves. But what manner of things may we ask for ourselves? We should pray for forgiveness, of course (Matt. 6:12). We should pray for wisdom-not just in matters of Bible study but in the practical wisdom needed to live rightly in this present world (Jas. 1:5). We can pray for our daily bread (Matt. 6:11). This means we pray for necessities not for a superabundance. Don’t be deceived by the present trend which distorts the gospel to promise wealth in return for serving God. Jesus didn’t make such promises even when multitudes thought He might. Instead He promised difficulties and heart break for those who would become His disciples (Lk. 14). We may pray for protection from bodily harm or poverty or other disasters. However, I think we should exercise great care in praying to God for material possessions. We cannot ask for these things out of selfishness and expect to receive them (Jas. 4:3). It is wrong to pray to God for a grand new home thinking only of its pleasure to you. It would, however, be right to pray for a new car if the one you presently drive is unsafe and unreliable in taking you about the Lord’s business. In short, we may pray for anything which relates to participation in and enjoyment of eternal redemption by ourselves or any other man.

What Are the Benefits of Prayer?

God, of course, answers prayer. Thus we may escape temptation through prayer or regain our health or be preserved on the highway through prayer. But there are other benefits to prayer, too. I don’t intend to reduce prayer to a psychological exercise as some have done, but we ought to recognize all of its benefits.

We are drawn closer to God through prayer. Someone has said that prayer is like pulling on an anchor stuck to the bottom (Heb. 6:12). You feel as if you’re pulling it in, but all the while you’re pulling yourself to it. Thus in prayer you may well be putting your needs before God, but fervent honest prayer will all the while bring you closer to Him.

Prayer can give us a feeling of forgiveness. Of course feelings can be wrong and the only way to know for certain you are forgiven is to comply with God’s conditions for forgiveness. Nonetheless feeling forgiven is important and prayer makes that possible. We need to feel renewed that we might with enthusiasm be about our Father’s business (Heb. 9:14). Our souls are often like a new car. We are so careful when it’s new to avoid any scratches or even dust. But after it’s a year old we no longer are so fussy about where we drive it or how it looks. Thus, if we had no way to scrub up our souls and make them new again the motive for doing good would be diminished. But we can be made new and pure again each day through prayer and thus maintain our incentive for acting soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world.

Prayer puts things in perspective. Some things we thought were so very important lose significance when we take them to God in prayer. The secret to accomplishing any great thing is not to lose sight of the big picture. We can get so caught up in the details of a task that they overwhelm us. Living faithfully to God is a great task and we often get so caught up in the grubby details of life that we lose sight of the big picture of God’s scheme of redemption. We forget, in our anxiety over bills and home repairs and children’s school, that we are bound for heaven. Prayer sets these things in their right place again.

How well do you understand the purpose and practice of prayer? Are you praying as you ought or are you missing out on the blessings of prayer? Let us today renew ourselves in prayer to God the Father who is the source of our strength and our blessings. Adoring and thanking Him, let us place our burdens and petitions and our lives in His competent, loving hand.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 20, pp. 624-626
October 17, 1985

By Jimmy Tuten

The inspired writer of the book of James tells us that our religion can be vain (Jas. 1:26). When religion becomes vain it is a faith that has lost its real value, its substance, and importance. It is empty, void and worthless. It has become a religion that is a sham, a pretension where one’s faith is not demonstrated with evidences of true faithfulness (Jas. 2:19-24, religion and faith are used in this context as that which is subjective, i.e., one’s piety or holiness).

But when is religion vain? The answer to this is so very important to the true believer who wants to practice pure religion. It would be a terrible thing to learn in the end of this world that our religion was vain and worthless. By some it is feared even now, in the eighties, that most professing believers lead lives that are mere pretensions. The love of display, the love of the spectacular is growing among professed members of the body of Christ. There is a prevalent attitude that opposes all preaching except totally positive preaching. In fact, some are asking, “Is there a place for the negative in our preaching and teaching?” The Bible teaches that it is important that we preach the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). This involves both the negative and the positive. Timothy was commanded to “reprove, rebuke, exhort,” but some today would have him only exhorting (2 Tim. 4:1-2). Surely we must emphasize what is right, but we have to condemn that which is wrong, too. Is it possible to stand for truth and not stand against sin at the same time? Certainly not! Sound doctrine is indispensable to pure religion. But it should be understood that just as a perverted doctrine corrupts, so does a neglected gospel. The “I don’t intend that anyone say no to my planned path of worthy living and fleshly indulgences” philosophy is the very thing that has led churches to be anxious no longer to be distinguished from the denominations. The result is that the trend is to even lift the preacher above the gospel by demanding pulpit pleasers who preach a sugar-coated, honey-dripping, lovey-dovey kind of preaching. Real, sound gospel preaching is on the decline (1 Cor. 1:18-31). There is an increase of vain religion. Brethren, we simply cannot let our pride of intellectual attainment in the field of modern scholarship keep us from preaching the simple gospel that must of necessity “romp on toes” wherever there is a perverted and neglected gospel (Gal. 1:6-9). We are to speak the truth in love, but this involves reproving and rebuking, sometimes.

History will bear out the fact that the “new face” of the Lord’s church today came about because of a gradual abandonment of basic, doctrinal teaching in favor of more socially relevant themes. This was followed by a loss of conviction that denominational people are lost and the ultimate disregarding of scriptural differences. We need to understand that truth is not negotiable whether it be in a unity meeting like the Joplin, Missouri meeting (Aug. 7-9, 1984), or anywhere else. Do you wonder why there is a dying evangelistic spirit among us? This is it! Denominationalism is wrong no matter which way one cuts it.

We can exhort our young preachers to attain a greater degree of education under the guise that the day of “cornfield” preachers has come to an end, but we will reap the fruit of a corrupted church. You can put emphasis on the need to communicate to the young and aggressive minds as if they needed something different from the rest of us, but you will end up with a “the old style, plain book-chapter-and-verse” preaching must go the way of the flat-top and crew-cut hair styles philosophy. There will be more “sharing a text” in our pulpits rather than taking a text. In short, the Jerusalem gospel will be replaced with current religious thought. It is not possible to preach Christ and honor Him while at the same time avoiding the preaching of His doctrine and gospel (2 Jn. 9; Rom. 1:16-17). The most practical way to turn people’s attention to the Lord is to turn their attention to His Word. We must overcome the temptation to make a show of religion. The child of God must continually ask himself the question: “Does the kind of preaching I involve myself in make my religion real and genuine?” Or after all, “Is my religion vain?” It is important then that we give attention to the question, when is our religion vain?

Our Religion Is Vain When We Do Not Bridle Our Tongues

James 1:26 says, “If any man thinketh himself to be religious, while he bridleth not his tongue . . . this man’s religion is vain.” We deceive ourselves if we claim to be religious and at the same time do not bridle our tongues. As a youngster I had a high-spirited house that Dad had bought for us to ride. We had to put what we called “a cutting bit” in her mouth that was attached to her bridle. Only in this way could we hold her in check and control the horse. There was no other way to make her obey us. To bridle the tongue, therefore, means to hold the tongue in check, to control it that it may always obey judgment.

The tongue can be a most evil member. The apostle says, “and the tongue is a fire, the world of iniquity. . . ” (Jas. 3:6). The tongue is set on fire of hell and defiles the whole body. The old Hindu proverb is true: “conquer your passions and you conquer the whole world.” When I think of the description of the tongue as a restless evil full of deadly poison, I think how unruly it is when let loose (Jas. 3:7-8). It is sad to see evidences in the body of Christ today of the tongue divising “every wickedness, like a sharp razor, working deceitfully” (Psa. 52:2). Much of the trouble that plagues the family, the community and the church is often devised and stirred up by an unholy tongue. Most of our vexations come largely from the lack of control of the tongue. It is no wonder that the wise writer said, “A fool’s mouth is his destruction, and his lips are the snare of his soul. . . ” (Prov. 2:23). Furthermore, time can scarcely heal the cruelly inflicted wounds of a talebearer’s tongue. As I write I think of the bleeding hearts and souls wounded almost to death by the cruel tongue of the slanderer. How sad! Surely our religion is vain if we control not our tongues while claiming to practice pure religion. To say that what we are hearing throughout the brotherhood is a mixed bag is an understatement. Bane and blessing earmark our era, and sorting the good from the bad is seldom easy. The facetious “you can’t trust them Christians” of the past has all but become a reality of the present. Let us not deceive ourselves. Rest assured that He who has a sharp tongue soon cuts his own throat. Let us, as someone has aptly said, “be sure your brain is engaged before putting your mouth in gear.” Eternity demands it! Your religion could be vain.

Our Religion Is Vain When We Do Not Practice What We Profess

Religion is vain when we do not practice what we learn from God’s Word (Jas. 1:25). Our brethren in Christ profess much in reference to religion. We claim to advocate the truth, the whole truth, as revealed by Jesus (1 Cor. 2:6-12). But our “we speak where the Bible speaks” profession has become a pretension. The institutional churches have made a sham of the plea with their denominational practices which have caused them to lose their distinctiveness. In other areas, we, the conservatives, make loud boasts with little practice sometimes in comparison to what we profess. The fact that some of us profess great faith in Christ and the allsufficiency of His Word, yet become discouraged, allow zeal to slacken and do little beyond “keeping house,” is obvious. Such religion is vain, empty and worthless. This no longer involves isolated cases scattered throughout the brotherhood. The vainness has become rather widespread.

Charles Colson, writing in Moody Monthly (Sept., 1985) under the heading, “Stabbing the Conscience of a Sleeping Church, ” has effectively pointed out that the refusal to believe Cathleen Webb’s recent recanter of her testimony as a 16-year-old (Cathleen Crowell, then) that convicted Gary Dotson of rape in 1977 was due to the judge’s not believing her when she said she is now telling the truth (that Dotson did not rape her) because of her conversion to Christ. Understanding that the denominational concept of conversion must be taken into consideration, we note that Colson concluded two things about the implications of her so-called repentance: (1) “For those who have not experienced the One who transforms lives, what happened to Cathleen Webb is inexplicable.” (2) “Cathleen Webb’s (she is now married, jt) actions seem incomprehensible because the world so seldom sees genuine repentance in action” (p. 14). The latter point is what Colson sees as a stab at the church (denominationalism). But, is it not a stab at the Lord’s Church too? Are we generally showing any better sincerity of practice of religion than Christendom as a whole? Have we picked up on how the public generally views the court case involving the Collinsville elders (Church of Christ)? You guessed it: “It’s just a.display of hypocrisy on the part of the Church of Christ elders.” In this area, this writer and others whom I have talked to are seeing more and more vain religion in our ranks. Only when we answer the question rightly: shall we practice before the world what we profess? will we restore New Testament, primitive Christianity.

So in addition to our general failure to act on our so-called belief that we are the New Testament church and that the gospel is the power to save, many are seeing more and more Pharisaical attitudes when it comes to prejudices toward each other. Prejudice is sinful (Matt. 7: 1; 13:15). We cannot show partiality toward certain brethren and expect to go to heaven (Rom. 12:9-10; Jas. 2:1). We cannot believe every evil report that is spread without investigation (“Doth our law judge any man, before it hears him, and know what he doeth?” [Jn. 7:51]). With so much gossip in circulation about this preacher or that preacher, this brother or that brother, along with the refusal of the gossipers to even talk to those whom they condemn, some are asking, “How can they claim to be Christians, let alone preachers?” I too, wonder! “For they say and do not” (Matt. 23:2-3). In some quarters our practice is a shame and disgrace, and some of our most respected brethren (?) live in such a way that they should never get out of the pulpit once they get in it, and never get in it when they get out. Such displays make religion vain.

Our Religion Is Vain When It Does Not Make Us Better

Just this past week in two of the home studies that I am conducting with weak and newly converted members, I have had occasion to stress the need for evidence of growth in the faith. Wherever there is growth there will be evidences of such progress. For example, in 2 Peter 1:5-8 one finds such expressions as “giving all diligence,” “if these things be in you, and abound,” and “neither be barren nor unfruitful.” Concerning this very thought the apostle Paul admonished Timothy: “meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all” (1 Tim. 4:15). More literally Paul is saying, “think hard about all this, and put it into practice, and everyone will be able to see how you are advancing” (The Jerusalem Bible). So, as a Christian my religion should show advancement and not retardation. If my religion does not make me better in every way in every respect, what does it amount to, as it respects me? Am I benefitted at all when I am not a better man? Would my profession not be empty, vain, worthless and fruitless? How often the Christian gives way to his or her evil passions and desires, and religion becomes vain!

In my vocation as a Christian, if I am not made more wise, just and live more in harmony with the Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12), has not my practice become vain? Brethren, and preachers in particular, by reason of growth, should have more of that wisdom which “is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruit, without variance, without hypocrisy” (Jas. 3:17). Christians should not harbor resentments, be filled with sinful prejudices and engage in hurtful and damaging talk. The most sinful among us do not need their sins (?) paraded before the brotherhood. What is needed is some concern for the soul of the brother or sister and an effort to restore such a one (Gal. 6:1-2). How many have been driven into complete abandonment of the faith by vain religionists among us who seem to have little or no milk of human kindness and mercy in them? Can we not learn that it is usually those who are not important who most often make the mistake of thinking that they are? Too many are ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth.

My religion should make me a better citizen who promotes and maintains civic righteousness in every community. it should make one a better wife or husband, son or daughter, better employer and employee, and if it does not, religion is vain. Yes, if my profession and practice as a child of God does not make me better in every way and happier in this life and in the life to come, it is undoubtedly a vain religion.

Conclusion

We who claim to be Christians only and are pleading earnestly the restoration of apostolic Christianity wherein there has been departure, are absolutely right in theory and profession. But, what about our practice? Are we living the Christ-like life? Are we any better than those who are still in the bondage of modern denominationalism? If it is not vain, we will not only say, we will do! Listen once again to what our Lord said: “Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21).

Engraved on an old slab in the Cathedral of Lubeck, Germany are the following words:

Ye call me Master but obey me not,

Ye call me Light but see me not,

Ye call me Way but walk me not,

Ye call me Life but desire me not,

Ye call me Fair but love me not,

Ye call me Rich but ask me not,

Ye call me Eternal but seek me not,

Ye call me noble but serve me not,

Ye call me mighty but honor me not,

If I condemn you, blame Me not.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 20, pp. 619-622
October 17, 1985