Truth Magazine

By Daniel H. King

What comes to mind when someone uses the word “fellowship”? Do you get the impression of something physical or spiritual when the term is used? The answers to these questions, as you would give them, have largely to do with how you have been taught on the subject. If the teaching you have received has been from the Scriptures directly, without the dilution of false notions about it, then your answers would reflect that. But if your background is such that it takes its cue from the current religious scene rather than from the Bible, then your replies would just as surely reflect that. The same would be true of the words “baptism,” “church,” “faith,” or any other which appears both in the Word of God and in present day language.

Assuring ourselves that we are meaning by our use of terms what the Bible means is at times a difficult thing to do. It is hard to step back from ourselves and our present moment in time and fathom what may be a very different way of thinking from our own. But it is important that we try. The reason for this is that our spiritual vocabulary is to remain static from one generation to the next. Paul put it this way: “Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou has heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 1:13). The implication of this is obvious: sound words impart sound ideas and truths; unsound words, on the other hand, impart wrong concepts and so communicate error. The best way to retain the proper ideas is to keep the proper terms, at least terms which are definitionally the same. In spite of the fact that languages do change with time, ideas expressed therein may remain the same by accurate translation. Thus, it is possible to communicate in any language the truths taught in the Bible, just so they are precisely rendered from the Greek and Hebrew of Scripture into words and phrases which, in essence, “say the same thing.”

We have to be especially wary of our own use of biblical words which have been changed in the common vocabulary by undisciplined usage. It is our responsibility to know and express their originally intended meanings. The word “baptism” is a perfect example. When you say the word, a hearer who was brought up in the Catholic church will conjure up in his or her mind a picture of a priest pouring a cupful of water over the head of an infant. The word communicates to them exactly what they have witnessed in the ritual of their own experience. They will likely never pause to reflect upon whether this was the idea communicated in the usage of the biblical term. They may not even care. Yet most of us will realize that what they think of when the word is used is a mile wide of the mark of what was meant by the apostles of Christ when they first used baptizein.

Could we, in the churches of Christ, be guilty of the same sort of thing? In spite of our frequent vocal expression of respect for the authority of Scripture, the truth is that we are just plain “folks” like everyone else, and so stand just as perilously close to damnable error as others. A few steps taken, and we are over the cliff with the sectarian world. In recent years many of us have come to be just as diffident and incautious about what we believe and say as those in many of the denominations. Some of us are headed straight back into denominationalism on account of the attitude which has made such headway among us in recent years the attitude which ignores the biblical injunction to be ever vigilant lest we miss the mark of truth: “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves” (2 Cor. 13:5).

The Word “Fellowship”

We could spend space on any of a number of important Bible words in a discussion like this. Many are misapplied in the language of modern religion. But one which deserves some special notice is the term “fellowship.” Over the last several decades the misuse of this word has carried the church into all sorts of unscriptural activities. With the redefinition of this term has come an attendant redefinition of the work of the church. It has turned many churches, even churches of Christ, into virtual social clubs. This is not to suggest that the word was first redefined and then things were changed to fit this new meaning. Rather, “times were a-changing” in our society and within the religious world (and with it the Lord’s church). The result was that the old words needed new definitions to fit those practices which were coming to be accepted as “church activities.” The term fellowship came to be the catch-all to cover many of these things, both in sectarianism and in digressive churches of Christ.

The fundamental connotation of the root koin (“common”), from which we derive our word for fellowship in the Greek New Testament, is that of sharing something with someone. Words belonging to the koin family refer primarily though not invariably to participation in something rather than association with someone. There is often a genitive to indicate that in which one participates or shares. The major idea in the koin words is that of sharing. The sharing involves participation and association, but primarily participation.

In the New Testament usage, three ideas are expressed. They are: (1) having a share, as at Hebrews 2:14; 10:33; 2 Corinthians 8:23; Romans 11:17; 1 Peter 5:1; and Philippians 1:5; (2) giving a share, as in 2 Corinthians 19:13, where it is a “contribution” (in this instance in the form of money donated); and (3) sharing with someone else, as in 1 John 1:3: “that you also may have fellowship with us,” i.e., “share what we are sharing:” “and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.”

As one scholar has cogently put it: “Both in classical and Biblical usage these terms express joint participation in a person or project and secondarily association or mutuality of spirit. Fellowship posits as its prerequisite a likeness of nature that transcends external and temporary difference. True fellowship can exist only among true believers” (Baker’s Dictionary of Theology). This definition clues us in as to two important facts about fellowship: (1) fellowship is based upon a commonality of spiritual nature; (2) fellowship moves out of this commonality of spiritual interest into shared actions like worship and praise, prayer and service, etc.

What Fellowship Is

Fellowship exists among true believers because each shares in the nature of God. We are His children, His sons and daughters, and so are in a very real sense like Him. We are also somewhat unlike Him (whenever sin infects us). But we are said to be partakers of His spiritual being, or nature, and so we take on His likeness: “Seeing that his divine power hath granted unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that called us by his own glory and virtue; whereby he hath granted unto us his precious and exceeding great promises; that through these ye may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world through lust” (2 Pet. 1:34).

Being of a common family, the family of God, Christians are said also to share many other things. For example, they share a common faith (Tit. 1:4). They have the shared benefit of the Lord’s promises (Eph. 3:5). And such blessings lead to the sharing of common responsibilities. This commonality is obvious in a text in 3 John (vv. 5-8). It is penned to Gaius, a faithful believer: “Beloved, thou doest a faithful work in whatsoever thou doest toward them that are brethren and strangers withal; who bare witness to thy love before the church: whom thou will do well to set forward on their journey worthily of God: because that for the sake of the Name they went forth taking nothing of the Gentiles. We therefore ought to welcome such, that we may be fellow-workers for the truth.” Common being and interest thus leads to fellowship in spiritual obligation. The concept of fellowship then, when rightly and consistently applied, will lead us all to realize that each of us has responsibilities in the service of God. It will not do for the church to put them off on the preachers or the elders and deacons, for these obligations are meant to be shared by all. That is what fellowship implies to each of us individually.

On a positive note, it may be said that Christians are to share in agreement on important matters of faith and practice in Christ (Gal. 2:9; Phil. 1:5-7; 3 Jn. 5-8). Negatively speaking, they must guard carefully that they do not share in error or its spread (3 Jn. 8,11; 2 Jn. 10-11; 1 Cor. 10:20-21; Eph. 5:11).

Christians also share in communion with Christ (1 Cor. 10:16-17), notably in the Lord’s Supper.- It is marvelous to think that when we are gathered around the table of the Lord to partake of the Lord’s memorial Supper, we somehow have a part with Him and with each other-not only in the Supper itself and its elements-but in our common life. Through it we declare our oneness with Him and with each other: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in (ASV footnote) the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” Such a sacred “communion,” as it is called, is not to be likened to an ordinary meal. Although Christians may eat together in one another’s homes and so “share” with each other life’s good things, still there is a difference between that and this. Early Christians participated in both (Acts 2:42,46). They even, in one instance at least, failed to recognize the distinction between the two (1 Cor. 11:34).

The word “fellowship” is never used of such purely social events. Even the people of the world jointly participate in such affairs. What is there about a common meal that would relegate it to the realm of the spiritual? On the other hand, it is only the disciple of Christ who can hold in proper reverence the transcending privilege of observing the Lord’s Supper. This should be one of the greatest moments of genuine fellowship to be had in the experience of the Christian. Placing it on a par with everyday meals and social occasions by describing them all alike as “fellowship,” while it may raise the status of such primarily social affairs, is demeaning to that which is sacred by biblical standards.

There may be some prudence in reflecting here upon the Old Testament injunction, so important to Leviticus and Ezekiel, which states that man ought not to “make that which is holy into that which is common or unclean” (Lev. 10:8-11). Ezekiel rebuked the priests of his day for not drawing the line sharply enough. The result was sin on the part of both people and priest: “Her priests have done violence to my law, and have profaned my holy things: they have made no distinction between the holy and the common, neither have they caused men to discern between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from by sabbaths, and I am profaned among them” (22:26). When he prophesied concerning future priests, he said of them, “And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and the common, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean” (44:23). There has ever been a difference between the two in the Word of God, and man is never permitted to dissolve or ignore the distinction between them. Many Old Testament stories have as their lessons this very point. This is true with Cain and Abel, Nadab and Abihu, Uzzah, etc.

What is it then that makes one thing sacred and another common? The answer to that is very simple. God has chosen one, and by His choice He has made special. The Bible word for that specialness is “holy.” The Temple, its candlestick, bowls and utensils, were all holy because God made them so. They were different from other articles and utensils in this one point only. This well illustrates our thought here. The term “fellowship” describes something which has a special place in the common life of disciples of Christ. They may share many things in life which are quite ordinary, but what they have in common because of their spiritual kinship to Christ and each other is that which, in the lexicon of biblical terminology, may be rightly called “fellowship.”

What Bible Fellowship Is Not

If we take the word “fellowship” to mean simply “sharing” in something or other (as do many of our brethren), then of course we could refer it to anything and everything. A game of cards, baseball, football, etc., all would qualify as “fellowship.” Enjoying a common recreation, eating a meal, etc., would be fellowship. Many Christians think nothing of calling such things “fellowship.” But is this what the Bible means by the term? Is there anyone who can produce scriptural proof that the apostles and prophets used it so?

The fact that Christians do the thing in question together does not make it fit the category of “fellowship.” Like anything else, it must be defined as such by the Bible to fit the category we want to place it in. For example, a swimming party does not qualify as “baptism” in Bible terms, even though there is water present and people are immersed in it; neither does a common meal including grape juice and crackers suit the Bible definition of “the Lord’s Supper.” Not just any religious gathering fills the scriptural definition of “church,” nor an aerobic exercise class the “building up of the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:13-15). And although I am ashamed to admit it, I have known brethren who would be willing to make every one of the preceding identifications.

Admittedly, Bible fellowship is a spiritual relation that leads at times to physical “sharing” of goods-in times of need and with specific spiritual goals in mind, i.e., the furtherance of the gospel, their financial resources as they, in turn, mete out spiritual food (Gal. 6:6; Phil. 4:14-16). This does not make th church “communistic” nor does it change the truth about fellowship being, in the main, spiritual in nature. In both instances it is the spiritual kinship of the disciples of Christ which is the cause of the physical sharing. It does, though, call into question the validity of the title of our article. The truth is that fellowship is both physical and spiritual, with the accent resting squarely on the spiritual.

The problems which we have encountered over recent years have mostly resulted from the tendency of some brethren to place the emphasis on the physical in the first place, and the broadening of the term fellowship to include more than what the Bible does in the second. Behind it all however is the Social Gospel philosophy and its desire to remake the church in the image of its vision of what it should be-never mind the teaching of the Bible!

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 19, pp. 590-591, 595
October 3, 1985

By Wayne S. Walker

On “Eight is Enough” the oldest son lived with his wife before they were married, and the middle son made a girl pregnant out of wedlock. If I am not mistaken, the son on :’Family” was arrested for being at a “gay” bar. And “James at Sixteen” lost his virginity. These television programs were advertised as “family shows.” And the people of the world had the audacity to declare that such entertainment is good because it presents controversial issues in a “sensitive” way. The only decent way to present fornication, adultery, and homosexuality is to condemn them openly and boldly.

The primary source of education in this country is not the schools. The number one baby-sitting institution is not the daycare center. The first form of casual information children have is not their peer group. All of these things are provided by television. Parents, what are your children learning as they watch the television? Are they learning to love the Lord with all their heart, fear God, keep Christ’s commandments, do good unto all men, abhor that which is evil, and live a righteous life? Or are they learning about Boy George, who shot J.R., “Falcon Crest,” and the exploits of the cast on “Dynasty”?

This is not intended as a blanket condemnation of television. I have a television set in my house and use it, occasionally. We can keep informed on the world about us via the news. We can relax by watching the few decent shows left. There are programs which help children learn basic educational skills in a fun manner. And some churches of Christ have even used the television as a means of preaching the gospel. But there is much on television that is ungodly and immoral. And too many of us are letting this moral garbage flow into our living rooms almost constantly, with little or no supervision whatever, where it is filling the minds of impressionable children with things that really are not fit for adults to watch. Brethren, we need to wake up, smell the bacon, and exercise our option of using the off switch. “Now it is high time to awake out of sleep. . . . The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light” (Rom. 13:11-12).

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 19, p. 586
October 3, 1985

By Ron Halbrook

Bible history and the subsequent history of man eloquently warn us of the danger of inconsistency between our professed faith and our actual practice. We speak not here of the problem of occasional sin, from which a growing Christian turns (1 Jn. 1:5-2:2), but of persistence in a course of compromise. As we survey examples from the Bible and later history, especially the case of Guy N. Woods, may we study with sorrow and with prayer-“considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted” (Gal. 6:1).

Bible Warnings of This Danger

When Israel saw the destruction of Egypt’s army in the Red Sea, where they had just walked on dry land, they sang praises to the God of all power. Exalting His authority, they sang, “The Lord shall reign for ever and ever” (Ex. 15:18). Sad to say, they were inconsistent with this great principle when they murmured about God’s provisions in the days which followed. When Moses reported the laws and statutes of God to Israel at Mt. Sinai, the people answered in unison, “All the words which the Lord hath said will we do” (Ex. 24:3). They were reminded of this commitment later because they were not consistent in applying it. Once Joshua challenged Israel to choose whom they would serve and they responded, “God forbid that we should forsake the Lord, to serve other gods . . . therefore will we also serve the Lord, for he is our God” (Josh. 24:14-18). Their actions often belied their profession of faith in God.

When found to be inconsistent with our principles, we must correct our course. Or, we can multiply inconsistencies until we must resolve the tension by changing our principles. We can blind ourselves to this shift in loyalty. King Saul told Samuel, “Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, and have gone the way which the Lord sent me, and have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites” (1 Kgs. 15:20). Here Saul three times professes his loyalty to truth, but is blind to the inconsistency stated in the same breath. He could not see that his character and principles had changed, but God rejected him for rejecting His Word.

Paul said that many of the Jews professed loyalty to the law and taught it to others, but were “inexcusable” for violating their own principles (Rom. 2:1-4,17-23). “Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?” It is uncomfortable to have such inconsistencies pointed out because it reminds us of the need to correct our course or to change our principles. We may wish to do neither.

Campbell Chided by Creath

In discussing the work and organization of New Testament churches, a preacher named Alexander Campbell (1788-1866), observed:

They knew nothing of the hobbies of modern times. In their church capacity alone they moved. . .. They dare not transfer to a missionary society, or Bible society, or education society, a cent or a prayer lest in so doing they should rob the church of its glory, and exalt the inventions of men above the wisdom of God. In their church capacity alone they moved (Christian Baptist [reprint ed. of 1827; reprinted 1955 by Gospel Advocate Co.], 3 Aug. 1823, pp. 14-15).

An individual church or congregation of Christ’s disciples is the only ecclesiastical body recognized in the New Testament (C.B., 5 July 1824, p. 224).

During the Christian Baptist days (1823-30), Campbell clearly taught the Bible pattern of church organization. When God revealed the all sufficient organization for a local church to do its own work, He excluded the idea of churches building up and supporting human institutions. Professing to hold those same views, Campbell consented to be designated the first President of the American Christian Missionary Society formed in Cincinnati, Ohio in 1849, though he did not attend the meeting. Did he change his views on church involvement with human institutions? Or were his professed principles and practical application inconsistent?

Jacob Creath, Jr. (1799-1886) chided Campbell for now “advocating conventions as zealously as you then opposed them. ” Creath argued,

If you are right now, you were wrong then. If you were right in the Christian Baptist, you are wrong now. If you were right in the Christian Baptist, we are right now, in opposing conventions. We follow the first lessons you gave us on this subject (Millennial Harbinger, Nov. 1850, p. 637).

Campbell never corrected his course, but stiffened and persisted in his inconsistency, claiming that in his earlier days he only meant to warn of certain abuses of extra-congregational organizations. The language of those days cannot fairly bear such an interpretation. He simply blinded himself rather than admit the shift he had made.

“The Tendency Toward Institutionalism”

In a 1939 speech at Abilene Christian College on “Christianity in a Changing World,” Guy N. Woods warned against dangers facing the church. He began,

1. The tendency toward institutionalism. The ship of Zion has floundered more than once on the sandbar of institutionalism. The tendency to organize is a characteristic of the age. On the theory that the end justifies the means, brethren have not scrupled to form organizations in the church to do work the church itself was designed to do. All such organizations usurp the work of the church, and are unnecessary and sinful.

This writer has ever been unable to appreciate the logic of those who affect to see grave danger in Missionary Societies, but scruple not to form a similar organization for the purpose of caring for orphans and teaching young men to be gospel preachers.

Woods added that all benevolent “work should be done by and through the church, with the leaders having the oversight thereof, and not through boards and conclaves unknown to the New Testament.” This principle is clearly stated and is impregnable. It was commonly stated by brethren far and wide in that era, but an inconsistency in application was slowly developing.

Some brethren east of the Mississippi River (as was the Gospel Advocate) permitted churches to donate to benevolent organizations whose board of directors was chosen from several churches. The Tennessee Orphan Home in Columbia was such an institution. Some brethren west of the River (as was the Firm Foundation) protested such boards as unknown to the New Testament, but permitted a local eldership to constitute itself as a board of directors to conduct benevolent institutions on behalf of many churches. The Tipton Orphan’s Home of Tipton, Oklahoma was such an organization. Woods in his 1939 speech commended the Tipton arrangement but protested “against any other method or arrangment for accomplishing the work” (all quotations from A. C.C. Bible Lectures, 1939, pp. 42-49). Other brethren around the country protested both of these programs as inconsistent with the principle that each church was a sufficient organization to, conduct its own work.

The Tennessee plan represents “boards and conclaves unknown to the New Testament” and the Tipton plan transforms local elderships into brotherhood-wide “boards and conclaves unknown to the New Testament.” The two plans stand or fall together. Both fall if we rely on the Bible pattern as all-sufficient and if we reject all “boards and conclaves unknown to the New Testament. ” In time Woods resolved his inconsistency not by rejecting both of the institutional plans but by defending both plans in debates held during the 1950s. Though claiming no compromise of God’s all-sufficient pattern, Woods in shifting his ground has continued to swallow more and more institutionalism, liberalism, and apostasy.

Church Support of Societies and Colleges Parallel

In 1941 The Gospel Advocate Co. published Contending for the Faith, a compilation of articles from the Gospel Advocate and other material by G.C. Brewer (1884-1956). A series of nine articles from the Advocate (10 Aug.-12 Oct. 1933) are included in the book under the heading “About Organizations: Christian Colleges, Orphan Homes, and Missionary Societies” (pp. 199-238). The plea that the society is an agent of the churches was denied. Brewer rejected church support of the societies because the society “is over the churches-controls them” (p. 235). But he defended the church financially supporting orphanages and schools, whether as the work of a single church or “a number of congregations” (pp. 210-212). Churches of Christ can build, own, and operate schools “in a cooperative educational effort” (p. 234).

On the one hand, Brewer said “would to God we could get the vision” of churches giving enough money to colleges to build, equip, and endow them so that “the work would go gloriously on” without additional church funds (p. 232). On the other hand, he believed that either a single church or many churches could sustain on a regular basis human institutions such as schools and orphanages:

The faculty and trustees of an orphan home, or a school owned and operated by a single congregation, form an organization that is not of the church. Again it is only the workers doing their work. Then, if we should have schools and orphanages that are built and supported by gifts from hundreds of churches, the trustees and the faculties of these institutions would form an organization that is not the churches, but those who compose the organization would be agents or employees of the churches (p. 234).

A 33-year-old preacher named Guy N. Woods recognized that the veteran Brewer was making the same arguments commonly made to defend missionary societies. The human institution is not the agent of the churches which support it with their donations, but is an organization which has its own agents. The church is an organization with agents and may choose its own methods in evangelism, edification, or benevolence (Acts 14:23; 6:1-7). Both the church and the human institution purchase goods and services to expedite their work. The church is not authorized to make donations to human institutions which in turn act through their own agents and choose their own methods.

Woods pointed out in reviewing “Brother, Brewer’s Book” that the principle which permits churches “to support a human institution designed to educate young men for the ‘ministry… would also permit churches “to support an institution similarly organized to keep these young men in foreign fields preaching the gospel they learned in the College! In our view brethren surrender their contention against the Missionary society When they espouse such a view of the College” (Firm Foundation, 3 Feb. 1942, p. 8). There is no hint of such criticism and warning in Woods’ recent review of the same book (G.A., 2 June 1983, p. 331). What has changed? Woods’ present views violate the principles he once taught and claims still to believe.

The principle involved may be illustrated by a chart on “Divine vs Human Organization,” and what is not. (See chart on previous page.) The local church is authorized to conduct its own program of work-evangelism, edification, and benevolence (1 Tim. 3:15; Acts 2:42; 6:1-7). Elders oversee, deacons perform special service, and all saints participate (Acts 20:28; 6:1-7; Phil. 1:1). It is sinful to go beyond the bounds of God’s all-sufficient pattern (Gal. 1:8-9; 1 Cor. 1:10; 2:13; 4:6; 2 Jn. 9; Heb. 7:14).

The church is not authorized to make donations for any reason to human institutions-missionary societies, colleges, or orphanages. If it is, where is the Book, chapter, and verse: _________?? Nor is the local eldership authorized to transform itself into a board of directors to oversee some work for many churches. If it is, where is the passage ___________?? This is the difference between immersion and sprinkling, or singing and playing instruments of music in worship — one is authorized and the other is not. We can give positive divine authority for one, but not for the other. God gave the church not only its work but also a divine organization by which to accomplish its work!

But here again Woods, while claiming no change on the principle that it is wrong for churches to support colleges, has shifted his ground and found a way to endorse more institutionalism. We have already reported a personal visit of 1 March 1980 during which Woods argued that churches may donate money to the college for its Bible department — but not for secular education (Guardian of Truth, 19 Aug. 1982, pp. 481, 505-506). When he confirmed that position in a letter dated 8 April 1981, he tried to parallel the church donating to a college Bible department and the church providing gospel meetings. But the purpose of supporting a preacher in a gospel meeting either locally or far away is to convert the lost. Therefore, the parallel would be church donations to college Bible departments to train young preachers and church donations to missionary societies to sustain them in converting the lost. In fact, the same institution could function in both ways!

As Woods himself said so well when he opposed Brewer in 1942, the principle which permits churches “to support a human institution designed to educate young men for the ministry . . . would also permit churches “to support an institution similarly organized to keep these young men in foreign fields preaching the gospel they learned in College! In our view brethren surrender their contention against the Missionary society when they espouse such a view of the College.” Woods has shifted ground and surrendered truth, though he can no more see it now than Brewer could see his inconsistency then.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 19, pp. 592-594
October 3, 1985

By Don Bassett

On September 13 Wayne Earnest passed from this life. He and his wife, Linda, were in Tampa, Florida, at the time. They had traveled there, taking their youngest son, Stephen, to enroll him as a student at Florida College. During the family’s stay in the Tampa area, Wayne was stricken with a massive heart attack. He was hospitalized immediately, and the family was informed that all vital signs were failing and there was little hope. Linda and Stephen were joined quickly by David, Wayne’s eldest son, and Cathy Osment, Linda’s sister, both from the Memphis, Tennessee area. Wayne lingered for several days as the family kept their painful vigil at his bedside. He never recovered consciousness.

At his passing arrangements were made to conduct funeral arrangements in Memphis, Wayne and Linda’s family home. On the day of the service, September 16, a host of friends and brethren from several surrounding states filled the chapel of the Memorial Park complex in that city. Among them was a large group of brothers and sisters in Christ from the East Central church in Tulsa, Oklahoma, with whom Wayne had labored some six years at the time of his passing. Scores of gospel preachers traveled great distances to pay tribute to a highly respected fellow-laborer in the gospel and to offer comfort to Linda and the boys. I was honored by the family with a request to conduct the service.

At this point I find it difficult to continue writing. The same emotions that overwhelmed me and all who were in attendance at the funeral are once again as vivid and heartrending as they were on the day of the service. The tears flow unbidden down my cheeks as they did on the day I tried to speak to the friends and family of this good man. He was only fifty years old. He was in his prime, ready to accomplish, in the years of his maturity, even more for the Lord than he had in the days of early manhood. I recall the words of one of the aged brethren from Tulsa: “We don’t even know where to begin to look for someone to replace him,” and I am made to feel anew the sense of tragedy and loss that all of us felt on that day.

Wayne was a giver. He gave himself to the Lord, to his family, to his brethren, and to his fellow man generally. He gave of his talents in his preaching, and he gave of his material goods, over and over again, to any of whose need he had knowledge. I recall a day in Bowling Green, Kentucky, when I thought my troubles were too many for me to take much time or give much help to a young man traveling through that city. I sent him from my study with nothing. About an hour later I received a phone call from Wayne explaining that a young man (the same young man) had come to him for help. Wayne said he had put the fellow up in a motel room in town (at his own expense, of course) because his house was full up-and asked if I thought there was anything I could do about feeding the man because Wayne had spent all he had! That was Wayne Earnest. I am certain I could find many brethren who would testify that Wayne was taken advantage of, occasionally. But I am equally certain that none is to be found who knows of an instance in which Wayne allowed covetousness, under the guise of caution, to withhold his hand from a neighbor. He simply did not think of himself if he felt others were in need.

As a preacher Wayne was a happy combination of congeniality and courage. On the day of the funeral I heard one preacher after another say, “Wayne was just about the best-natured fellow there ever was, but he would not back off from the truth for anybody.” And that is certainly so. He was always courteous and cheerful. Yet I have seen him work under conditions that would infuriate many of us. His delightful sense of humor seemed never to desert him, even in the most trying circumstances. But his honesty and his unequivocal commitment to God’s truth would not suffer him to compromise it. In all the places he lived and worked locally and in the numerous communities where he preached in meetings there is no question what he stood for nor his willingness to tell it.

I can scarcely write of Wayne’s relationship with his family. On the day of the funeral the depth of Linda’s love for Wayne and the respect and esteem in which he was held by his two sons was so plainly written on everything they said and did that the hearts of all in attendance were rent with grief for them. In this day of troubled homes and shaky marriages it needs to be said that Wayne set an example for all of us. To see Linda standing by the coffin, stroking Wayne’s hair, hour after hour, weeping inconsolably, was to know that she loved him with all her heart. And to see David and Stephen attending their mother’s every need while choking on their own tears was to know that Wayne was appreciated in his own home. He practiced the same gospel there that he preached in public. He was the same man in the privacy of his home that he was in the pulpit.

Wayne Earnest was a simple man who made no pretense of being a person of great importance. As Walton Weaver said, on the day of the funeral, “Wayne just did a good work wherever he went And by thus humbling himself he became the person of great importance that it was not his primary aim to become. How many mountains Wayne moved by “just doing a good work” we’ll have to wait for the judgment to know for certain. But there were many, as those whom he taught, baptized, trained and befriended testified on the day of his burial. I know all who knew Wayne and read this join with me in extending their genuine sympathy to Linda and David and Stephen.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 19, p. 587
October 3, 1985