Truth Magazine

By Irven Lee

Over the last several years I have written several articles that have been made available to the brethren through this and other journals that are published to encourage spiritual growth. A few telephone calls, letters, and comments made by people I see either commend or criticize these articles. Almost all responses, even those that are critical, have been made in a courteous manner. All reactions from the readers help me and are appreciated.

One such pleasant letter came in response to an article published in the June 20, 1985 issue of Guardian of Truth concerning preachers. The letter was carefully written, and it is my impression that it will help those who read it. It follows, and it will speak for itself.

“In a recent article you asked the question, ‘Do some preachers who are in the “mission field” spend their time much as retired people do? I’m afraid the sad answer to your question has to be, “yes.” It is even sadder when you realize how little an individual member or an elder can do about it.

“I’ve struggled long and hard with the problem and have come to the following conclusion as to what I can do as an individual to help solve the problem: (1) Be hospitable and friendly with the preacher but do not involve him too extensively in your recreational activities. If the preacher involves himself in each member’s favorite recreational activity, then it leaves little time for him to do his work. Don’t make the preacher your favorite hunting buddy, fishing friend, golf partner, tennis rival, or whatever. (2) Even if he offers, do not allow the preacher to help you build or remodel your house, refinish your antique furniture, baby sit your children, or do anything else which keeps him away from his work. (3) Try to involve the preacher in meaningful religious conversational topics rather than talking about sports, fishing, the weather, or your own job or business. (4) Ask the preacher to show you how to do personal work, involve him in the personal work you are doing, try to get him to go door to door with you inviting people to the services. (5) Quiz the preacher often and tactfully on what he is doing. Know how he spends his time. Know what kinds of problems he has as far as accomplishing his ‘mission.’ (You’ll probably know all about his financial problems and what kind of deal he made on his last car trade, etc., whether you want to or not.) (6) Above all be tactful and confidential, avoid the appearance of being a critic. Do not discuss the preacher’s attitude toward his work unless it gets to the point that the congregation must take action and then only discuss it with others after you have discussed it with him personally and have given it plenty of time to soak in. My observation is that a preacher can split a congregation quicker than any one else and if he feels that you and others are ‘closing in’ on him, he may actually split the congregation in self defense. (7) Praise the preacher, both publicly and privately, every time you have an honest opportunity to do so. If he sets up or attends a Bible study, tell him how very much you appreciate it (even if it is his job. You probably like to be praised for doing things that are your job).

“In summary, use whatever management and leadership tactics that are available to you, realizing that firing the preacher is usually not a viable solution and also realizing that it is almost impossible to use constructive criticism. (Walk on eggs!)”

That closes the letter except for some personal notes which do not pertain to the article I had written. I commend this letter to all preachers, elders, and members of the church as we all work together to make our efforts in the Lord’s kingdom more effective.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 17, p. 527
September 5, 1985

By Ron Halbrook

In a visit with brother Guy N. Woods at his Gospel Advocate office in Nashville, TN on 1 March 1980, I talked with him about reprinting his speech at the 1939 Abilene Christian College lectures. We discussed several matters and I promised to send copies of appeals from colleges, asking for church support since he claimed not to have seen any. When I sent them, I enclosed a letter dated 21 March 1980 asking him three questions to clarify whether I properly understood some points in our conversation. No response ever came. I wrote 18 March 1981 explaining I had secured the speech for publication and repeating the three questions. My questions and his answers dated 8 April appear below. His answer to question two means that the church cannot donate money to a college for secular education but can donate to an orphanage which runs a school. Actually, there is no Bible authority for the church to donate its money to any human institution for any reason. I sent him some bulletins and asked a few other questions 17 April but never got an answer. Those actions were repeated 24 June with the same result.

Woods’ 1939 speech appeared in the Guardian of Truth of 5 May 1983 along with my comments in the “Ephraim’s Idols” column (pp. 268-70, 277-79). I sent him a copy the next day and asked about the following matter:

Since your sermon protests any other arrangement than an orphanage under an eldership, out of historical interest I would like to know when and how you determined that orphanages like Tennessee Orphan Home (not under an eldership) were scriptural and worthy of church contributions. Who convinced you, when, and by what arguments?

I also noted “with extreme disappointment the spread of a recreational craze among churches by building Family Life Centers-otherwise known as gymnasiums,” and noted “with genuine sorrow that this matter is not being directly addressed in the Gospel Advocate.” I had offered in the 17 April 1981 letter to get him space in the Guardian of Truth to address this matter if he would print the same article in the Gospel Advocate. He sent “An Open Letter to Ron Halbrook and the Editor of ‘The Guardian of Truth. . . dated 18 May 1983, but it was limited to comments on the 1939 speech. Woods has said nothing about the others matters I have pled with him to address. Expecting to hear nothing more from him, we go ahead and print what we have on hand.

The “Open Letter” claims that my publication of his speech is “the first time in four decades those who believe as you do on the orphan home issue have been permitted to see what I actually said in context.” Woods says the problem is that his commendation of the Tipton Orphans Home has been uniformly suppressed to create a “gross misinterpretation. ” Actually, different parts of the speech have been quoted from time to time, including the part about Tipton at times (see for instance, Tom O’Neal, “Reading After Brother Woods,” Searching The Scriptures, June 1983, pp. 412-14). Woods is himself misrepresenting the facts here and is impugning the motives of brethren.

What really bothers Woods is that when brethren have included the Tipton remark, with its protest against churches supporting orphanages which are under boards but not under elderships, brethren often have pointed out that Woods later changed and promoted what he once protested. He also changed from opposing to approving church donations to colleges with Bible departments which “train young men to be gospel preachers.” No one has quoted Woods as though he opposed all orphanages, or opposed colleges supported by individual funds. Woods has changed on which orphanages churches may support and on whether colleges should receive church funds to train preachers.

The 1939 speech clearly enunciates some great principles of truth. With some of them he was inconsistent then and he has compromised most all of them in the years since then. Brethren will continue to quote these classic statements, even at the expense of pricking brother Woods’ conscience. The course he has followed and its consequences teach a powerful lesson on the danger of compromise and inconsistency. Let us not gloat, but weep, “considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted” (Gal. 6:1).

Questions by Halbrook (18 March 1981)

1. Is it scriptural for churches of Christ to contribute from their treasuries to Christian colleges for their work, if it is designated for programs of education in the ministry of gospel preaching (such as Bible departments)? I understood from our discussion that you would say yes. Is this correct?

2. Is it scriptural for churches of Christ to contribute from their treasuries to Christian colleges for their work designed to educate young people in standard liberal arts programs? I understood you would say no. Is this correct?

3. Did I understand you to say it is unscriptural for churches to provide from the treasury recreational facilities and programs to the congregation at large, i.e., to all families whether indigent or not, but that it might incidentally supply some such service to the indigent in the normal course of supplying their need?

Answers by Woods (8 April 1981)

I am very pleased to answer your questions, and you have my permission to publish them provided you will do so in full.

1. It is scriptural for churches to use money from their treasuries to provide for the teaching of the Scriptures whether in the Bible departments of Christian colleges, in Bible Schools on Sunday morning, or in gospel meetings.

2. I do not believe that it is a part of the work of the church to provide secular education, as such, merely to provide “a Christian atmosphere” for the teaching of young men and women; this responsibility I believe to be the proper function of the home. However, when the home is no more and its needs fall upon the church in providing for the “fatherless,” these needs include education, and may be provided. I refer specifically to the needs of fatherless children in homes supported by the church.

3. This is answered in the above.

An Open Letter To Ron Halbrook And The Editor Of The Guardian Of Truth

My thanks to you for publishing, in full, my speech delivered many years ago at the Abilene Christian College Lectureship, entitled “Christianity In A Changing World.”

Portions of this speech have been wrested from context and published time and again in bulletins, books, and church papers in consequence of which in no instance known to me before the publication of this speech by you have I been correctly represented. On the assumption that men who claim to be Christians will not deliberately convey a totally false impression, I once protested such perversions but long since desisted because in every instance my protestations were disregarded. For the first time in four decades those who believe as you do on the orphan home issue have been permitted to see what I actually said in context.

The intent of this suppression was to make it appear that I formerly opposed orphan homes and I was quoted as follows:

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.

Obviously it was not my purpose to oppose Christian education in schools established for that purpose because this speech was made on the campus of a Christian College. Is it not remarkable that after I had clearly identified the type of organizations opposed, the statement, “In this connection it is a pleasure to commend to the brotherhood Tipton Orphans Home, Tipton, Oklahoma” appears. For forty years, those opposed to orphanages have quoted the foregoing statement, while suppressing this one, to show that I once opposed orphan homes? Ah, what great crimes are committed in the name of religion. Brother Halbrook says I have “complained” about this. Does not such gross misrepresentation deserve at least a complaint? And, should it be necessary to complain in order to get the simple truth told?

After commending Tipton orphan home, I also said, “The work is entirely scriptural, being managed and conducted by the elders of the church in Tipton, Oklahoma, aided by funds sent to them by the elders of other congregations round about. We here and now declare our protest against any other method or arrangement for accomplishing this work.” In every debate I conducted, and there were many of them, so far as my memory extends, the Tipton orphan home was specifically mentioned among those I defended. Were I to debate the question this week, I would gladly include it among those I believe to be scriptural. I did not then, nor do I now believe that the “elders” are over the home as elders; it is no more possible to put elders over the home as elders, than it is to put parents over the church, as parents. As the Tipton home paper puts it, the elders of the Tipton church are the trustees of the Tipton Orphan Home. That I believe then and so believe now.

Let the following facts in summary be noted: (1) 1 believed in and endorsed an orphan home when the speech was made; (2) 1 declared my support of churches contributing from their treasuries funds to support the home; (3) 1 endorsed the idea of “elders of other congregations” sending money to the elders of another church, thus cooperating with them. These continue to be, as they always have been, my views in the matter.

Finally, I also said, “Brethren have not scrupled to form organizations in the church to do work the church itself was designed to do.” I believe such action to be as wrong today as I did when these words were uttered more than forty years ago. As a matter of fact, a “blurb” in my editorial published in the Gospel Advocate of May 1983 reads: “No human organization, however worthy its aims, respectable its membership or imposing its properties, can substitute for the church of our Lord. ” It is not the work of the church to provide recreation, discipline and secular education for children. Orphan homes which perform these services are doing the work which God assigned to the home and are, therefore, homes, not churches, and thus are not doing “the work the church itself was designed to do.”

Again, my sincere thanks to brother Halbrook and the editor of Guardian of Truth for publishing the speech in full.

Guy N. Woods

P.O. Box 150

Nashville, TN 37202

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 17, pp. 525-526
September 5, 1985

By Fred Melton

Have you ever heard “things in the night” or in daytime for that matter? I don’t mean some supernatural manifestation that is “better felt than told”-rather some thought or idea that constantly invades the mind to the extent that you lose some sleep over it.

Children always seem to be the ones who suffer the most from the misdeeds or lack of concern of adults and God has said that it is true, “because thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children” (Hos. 4:6). Not that God desires future generations to be doomed, but the saving power of the gospel will have no influence in their hearts.

There is a whole generation of children out then in foreign fields and especially in England that is ripe for the harvesting. Some have suggested that the church in Britain should be rebuilt from the ground up, and since Jesus has said unless you “become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven,” perhaps this is literally a good place to start. Now I know the old Catholic adage, “Give us the first seven years of a child’s life and he will always be a Catholic” is not always true; otherwise; you could never convert a Catholic, but you must admit that it certainly gives them the inside track. As Solomon said, “Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old hit will not depart.”

Children are a very important aspect of any foreign work and should be given a good deal of attention. During the number of years my family and I spent in England, I personally feel we had great success with the English children. Unlike their counterparts in America, where some liberal minds seem to believe neighborhood children must be bribed into church classes through entertainment, bus ministries, etc., these little English “aliens” are very receptive to simple personal attention which I cannot consider as bribery. Of course, the home is always the primary and ideal place to instill Bible principles but since that is usually impossible under their circumstances, the Bible class should be utilized.

Some days during our annual week of summer Bible school in Tunbridge Wells and Bristol, attendance would run over one hundred of which thirty-five to forty would remain relatively faithful in Sunday morning classes throughout the year. Some of these young people, ranging in age from six to sixteen would get up, dress and feed themselves, and make it to the classes without any effort or concern whatsoever on the part of their parents. Such unexpected zeal is remarkable in light of the religious apathy of English society at large. Surely within this small element there is the exceptional child or two that God is looking for who will make it all worthwhile. I also discovered that many of the adults who showed an interest in either hearing or obeying the gospel in England had a history of Bible school attendance while they were children — usually with some denominational body.

Obviously a good deal of time and energy is required in the training of such children which may explain a small success rate since the worker is not able or does not choose to stay with them a number of years.

About the time the English child reaches the age of twelve, a terrible thing memo to happen to them. One aspect of this tragedy takes the form of state supported religious schools which are many times academically superior to comprehensive schools but require the student to attend Sunday Bible classes at the local parish church. Spiritually speaking, this amounts to the proverbial “hitting them over the head with a hammer” for they teach them nothing substantial while making it virtually impossible for anyone else to reach them. I remember one very promising young student whom parents insisted she attend one of these parochial schools. She seemed very disappointed to leave us and stoutly affirmed she would return after a mandatory term of one year with the Anglicans; we never saw her again.

Another devastating force is, of course, peer pressure universally present among the young and extremely powerful with the British children. I have heard of estimates ranging up to seventy percent attendance in Bible schools of children in some areas of southern American, but in England I would judge it to be only a handful outside of what might be called a nursery generation among the Anglicans. Peers must be established among strong and faithful members of the Lord’s church to offset this detrimental influence.

I’m afraid good British brethren do not always help matters when they tend to adopt the traditional Anglican attitude that relegates the children to a “classes only” status. The transitional period from class to assembly (or child to adult) is hard enough without having to wander through a no man’s land of not knowing exactly where you belong.

Alas, if it were asked, “So then, Fred, where are all your little aliens now?” I shall ask my God for strength to do better while concentrating on His great love and mercy toward all those who hear and obey His voice-when I hear children crying in the night.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 17, p. 517
September 5, 1985

By Bill Hall

How thankful we should be for wonderful examples of courage that spur us on to greater strength in the Lord’s service.

Paul was just such an example: “And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear” (Phil. 1:14). These brethren, formerly timid and reticent, were drawing strength from the courage of Paul.

Other examples abound. Stephen’s plea, ‘Lord, lay not this sin to their charge,” surely had for its source of strength the forgiving spirit of the Lord (Acts 7:60). The Thessalonian church found a source of strength in the example of the churches in Judea (1 Thess. 2:14). The Philippian church, a model of courage and conviction, could no doubt trace much of its strength back to the wonderful example of patience and equanimity demonstrated by Paul and Silas while in their midst. The Hebrew Christians were admonished to “remember them that had the rule over you, men that spake unto you the word of God; and considering the issue of their life, imitate their faith” (Heb. 13:7).

Christians of this generation are similarly drawing strength from the courage of others. Young men who refuse to miss

services of the church to play on a ball team; young women who refuse to be seen in public in scanty attire; businessmen who would lose their jobs rather than compromise their convictions; women who continue to adorn themselves in “meek and quiet spirits” whatever the sophisticated world thinks or says of them; sick people who bear their afflictions with patience and faith; elderly people who continue to attend worship when they are hardly able to go anywhere else; dying people who demonstrate how Christians ought to die; all are sources of strength and courage for others as they face similar circumstances. These all share a common spirit with the great characters of the Bible: they see in their temptations, trials, afflictions, and persecutions a special opportunity to be like Christ, to demonstrate their fidelity to Him, and to provide a source of strength for those who might be weak and wavering around them. They seize the opportunity and stand, and all of us are stronger because of them. Of these courageous people this world truly is not worthy.

Are we, however, to be always on the receiving end of the strength of others? As we draw strength from the courage of others, we must in turn become sources of strength and courage. Others look to us. Each of us has a “charge to keep,” and “God to glorify,” a present age to serve,” and in the words of Charles Wesley we seek God’s assistance:

Help me to watch and pray

And on Thyself rely;

Assured if I my trust betray

I shall forever die.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 17, p. 520
September 5, 1985