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 Larry Ray Hafley

The disciples inquired, “Tell us when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?” (Matt. 24:3) “These things” refers to the buildings of the temple and their destruction (24:2). From verse 3 through verse 33, Jesus discusses the desolation and destruction of Jerusalem. From Matthew 24:36-25:46, our Lord describes “the coming of the son of man and the judgment.”

The Pivotal Passage

Matthew 24:34 is the pivotal passage. “Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” Note again the reference to “these things.” “This generation” is defined by its earlier use in the book of Matthew.

(1) Matthew 1:17-“So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.” (2) Matthew 11:16-“But whereunto shall I liken this generation?” The, “this generation,” of this text is the “now” of Matthew 11:12. (3) Matthew 12:39, 41, 42, 45 — “An evil and adulterous generation . . . this generation . . . this wicked generation” is that era, that day, the generation of Christ’s personal preaching, death, burial and resurrection (cf. Matt. 12:40,42). The “men of Nineveh” is the generation of Jonah. The “queen of the south” is the generation of Solomon contrasted with “this generation” of Jesus. (4) Matthew 16:4-“A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of the prophet Jonah.” The “generation” of this passage is the Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus’ day (cf. “sign” in Matthew 16:1,4). (5) Matthew 17:17 – “O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you?” That generation was the time Christ was “with” them. (6) Matthew 23:36-“Verily I say unto you, all these things shall come upon this generation. ” Observe that “this generation” is distinguished from “the days of (your) fathers” (v. 30).

“That Day” vs. “Those Days”

In describing the desolation of Jerusalem, Jesus spoke of the tribulation of “those days” (Matt. 24:19, 22, 29), but when discussing the judgment, He spoke of “that day and hour” (Matt. 24:36, 42, 44, 50; 25:13). A sharpening of the contrast is seen “in the days that were before the flood” as opposed to “the day that Noah entered into the ark” (Matt. 24:38). The parallel is “the days before the coming of the Son of man” as opposed to “the day and ‘the hour wherein the Son of man cometh” (Matt. 24:50; 25:13).

Signs vs. Suddenness

Jesus told of the signs preceding the destruction of Jerusalem; namely, “false Christs and false prophets,” and wars and rumors of wars, famines and earthquakes-“all these are the beginning of sorrows” (Matt. 24:6-8). Further, He told them of “the abomination of desolation,” the Roman army (Matt. 24:15; Lk. 21:20). “Then know that the desolation thereof is nigh” (Lk. 21:20). They could “know” the destruction of Jerusalem was “nigh,” but the coming of the Son of man and the consequent judgment were to be without warning (Matt. 24:42,43,50; 25:13). Compare “then know” with “knew not” (Lk. 21:20; Matt. 24:39). “So shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”

The desolation and annihilation of “the buildings of the temple” were to be seen by signs — “When ye shall see a these things, know it is near, even at the doors . . . . But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only” (Matt. 24:33, 36). At least three times, Jesus specifically indicated that He was giving tangible evidence of the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt. 24:8,25,33), but the second coming and the judgment were to be sudden, unknown, as when a thief strikes (Matt. 24:42, 44, 50; 25:13; 1 Thess. 5:2-4; 2 Pet. 3:10).

Local vs. World Wide

The destruction of Jerusalem was a local event as is seen in the following: (1) “Ye” versus the rest of the world (Matt. 24:6,15). (2) The Roman army was “in the holy place,” not everywhere (Matt. 24:15). (3) The Judean saints were to “flee into the mountains” (Matt. 24:16), but why do this if the topic is the end of the world and the final judgment? Hence, the destruction is local in nature. (4) Commands to those on housetops and in fields (Matt. 24:17, 18) have little relevance if the second coming and judgment is being considered; thus, the subject is local in occurrence. (5) The danger to pregnant women and mothers with infants and the difficulty of flight in the winter or on the sabbath (Matt. 24:19, 20) are also unnecessary fears if the end of the world and the judgment are referred to; therefore, they are not in view. (6) Jesus spoke of “great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be” (Matt. 24:21). This implies that time will continue after “this time,” but there is no sense in saying, “nor ever shall be” if the end of the world and the judgment were being studied. (7) The same argument can be made from the next verse (Matt. 24:22). Those days evidently will “be shortened”; they will end, and the elect shall be saved because of it. But if the end of the world were in view, the elect would be saved whether the days were shortened or not. So, the destruction is local, not world wide.

However, the second coming and judgment are universal. They are compared to the “days of Noah” when “the flood came, and took them all away” (Matt. 24:39). The flood was not a local event. It was world wide (2 Pet. 3:6). It “took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” In the destruction of Jerusalem, the saved are ordered to “flee” (Matt. 24:16), but at the coming of the Lord, they are “taken” (Matt. 24:40, 41).

Finally, Matthew 25 supplements Matthew 24:36-51. The judgment of Matthew 25 involves and includes “all nations” (Matt. 25:32). It is the final judgment (Matt. 25:34, 41, 46). The ten virgins parable says, “be prepared,” “watch.” The parable of the talents stresses the necessity of diligence and faithfulness (Matt. 25:21,23,26; cf. 24:42-51). Are you faithfully and diligently watching?

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 19, pp. 588-589
October 3, 1985

By Larry Ray Hafley

The church, the truth and the gospel thrive on controversy. Controversy abounds when the truth is preached. The church grows when controversy surrounds it. The gospel, the sword of the Spirit, is sharpened when, through controversy, it confounds sin and darkness. There has always existed an innate conflict of truth and error, of the gospel and sin, of the church and the world. It is inherent in the very nature of things. They are natural adversaries.

Occasionally, controversy itself finds controversy-there is controversy over controversy. With that in mind, we submit a number of remarks on the subject of controversy from J.W. McGarvey. The citations and quotations which follow were taken from his book, Biblical Criticism. Please read them and reflect on them.

“Where the hottest fire of the enemy is, thither the return fire must be directed. Some of the friends of this last champion have cried out that he is being ‘hounded’ for his recent utterances; but this should not surprise them, for it is the business of the hounds to open after every fox that makes a fresh trail before them. What are hounds fit for if they do not chase away the foxes?” (p. 186)

“This is an open charge of hypocrisy made against censors of Dr. Abbott, or at least against a majority of them, and these the more intelligent. A man of his opportunities ought to know that no cause ever wins by such charges. If he cannot defend his companion in misery by argument, it would be more commendable in him to give up the contest than to turn to maligning the other side. The fact that a man is sincere or devout should never be used, though it often is, as evidence that his positions are sound or his arguments valid; it is still worse to parry the arguments of an opponent by charging him with insincerity” (p. 201).

“The President ought to remember that, on such questions as those made prominent by the ‘higher critics,’ a man’s personality and his teaching are so identified that it is next to an impossibility to keep them separate in thought. When the religious papers feel called upon to combat, with all their might, opinions which they regard as subversive of the Christian faith, it is not very easy to so aim their blows at the false teaching as not to strike the false teacher. Indeed, if a man comes forward with teaching which he knows beforehand to be very offensive to his neighbors, it does not appear very manly to complain when the latter are offended at him as well as at his teaching. A brave man is willing to bear all the personal consequences of any opinions which he may be constrained to propagate. If he dares not do this, he had better hold his peace” (p. 233).

“When the writings of certain critics lead to the discrediting of large portions of the Bible, and bring those who accept them to conclusions in conflict with plain statements of Christ and the apostles, the editors of religious papers that are truly religious will not cease their philippics because of a new and innocent name applied to the poison. Arsenic is arsenic, even if you call it sugar” (p. 235).

“Free Thought and Liberty of Speech”

“When a preacher or an editor becomes crooked in his teaching, and others criticize him until public opinion frowns upon him, he nearly always cries out that he is persecuted; that the ecclesiastic thumb-screws are being applied to him; and all the instruments of torture once used in the Spanish Inquisition became familiar to him. He cried out for freedom of thought and liberty of speech; and if the church he has scandalized undertakes to put him away for denying the truth, he is at once proclaimed a martyr by a whole host of fellows as crooked as he.

“Unfortunately for these victims of persecution, their views on the subject of free speech are very one-sided. They want all possible freedom themselves, but they are not willing to grant it to those on the other side. They desire to teach their heretical or infidel theories with perfect freedom, but they are not willing to be held up as heretics or infidels by those who believe them to be such. Why not have freedom of thought and liberty of speech on both sides? Why should it be regarded as a rightful exercise of freedom for a man to hold me up to ridicule, for believing the Bible, but an abuse of it for me to condemn and ridicule his unbelief? By all means let us have free speech; but when, by the full exercise of it, some fellow is floored, let him take it as his part, and not begin the cowardly cry of persecution. Jesus taught his disciples to be content when they were called Beelzebub; why should his enemies think themselves too good or too tender for the same treatment?” (pp. 246,247)

” . . .it is better to reply to men’s arguments than to cast suspicion on their motives” (p. 264).

“Hospitality to New Truth”

“There are certain men who think themselves called upon to emphasize the importance of giving a hospitable welcome to all new truth. I am greatly in favor of this myself, and I would join with these brethren in their cry if I thought there was any occasion for it among those who read what I write. There is nothing I delight in so much as new truth. Not that there is any truth new in the absolute sense of the word, but that there are truths new to me when I discover them-new because of my previous ignorance of them. I have been searching for new truths all my life; and when I find one of special importance, I am like the wise men when the star appeared the second time, I rejoice with exceeding great joy. Hospitable to new truth? My door stands wide open, winter and summer, to let it in. I am not acquainted with any man of sense who differs from me in this particular; . . . .

“But before I bow anything new in to my sanctum, I must know that it is a truth. My welcome for new truth is not more hearty than my detestation for error, whether new or old. Especially do I abhor old error when it steals the cap of truth and comes smiling up to my front door. I must know my guest before I give him a hearty welcome; and he must excuse me for letting him stand at the door till I read his credentials.

“. . I would have every man who finds truth which he clearly perceives to be truth to welcome it. I admire the caution of those who do not yet know whether that which they hear is truth or error, in holding a non-committal position; but I would despise the man who, having thoroughly studied the subject, hesitates to assail what he knows to be false and injurious. This is the stand that I have taken, and I fight not like one beating the air” (p. 352, 353).

“Heresy-Hunting”

“Some people have very confused ideas about hunting for heresy, and about Christian liberty. If a man advances and seeks to propagate teaching which I regard as very injurious, if not ruinous, and I assail it with vigor, such vigor as he feels unable to resist on the merits of the question, it is common for him and his friends to cry out, ‘Heresy-hunter! Heresy-hunter!’

“. . Out West there are bear-hunters. They go creeping around among the hills and rocks trying to slip up on a bear and take the advantage of him. In this they are like real heresy-hunters. But if a man is walking along the public road, and meets a bear reared on his hind legs, and reaching for him with his fore paws, there is bound to be a fight or a foot-race; and if the man should fight the bear, nobody could on this account call him a bear-hunter. The bear might say, ‘I am free, and have as much right on this road as you have,’ and the man could answer, ‘I am free, too, and have as much right on this road as you have.’ And if the man should also say, ‘You are after hugging me, and you hug everybody you can get hold of, so I will put a bullet through you,’ the average citizen would say that the man was in the right. So, if heresy does not want to be shot at, it should play sly and not walk out into the public road” (pp. 383, 384-emphasis mine-LRH).

Closing Comments

Please soberly reflect on the wisdom of brother McGarvey’s words.

Controversy about controversy may effect some good and some bad results. (1) A mean man who is in the right may be led to “clean up his act,” to argue truth fairly and honestly. That is good. (2) A good man may be further stimulated to reflect again on his attitude in argument. That is good. (3) A good man may feel that his fight for truth, though done with a grace, poise and charity, is doing more harm than good, so he sheathes his sword. That is bad. (4) Error may go unchallenged because truth fears being considered intemperate, unloving, unkind, devoid of the meekness and gentleness of Christ. That is bad.

Solution? With all love, gentleness, sweetness and kindness, firmly, militantly and aggressively hack and wail “the living day-lights” out of every high thing that exalts itself against the truth of God Almighty.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 20, pp. 611-612
October 17, 1985

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