Truth Magazine

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

By Jimmy Tuten

It has been said repeatedly that it takes the personal touch which radiates a genuine interest in the lost and a willingness to spend and be spent in order to bring people to a knowledge of truth. The lack of meaningful growth of the church of the eighties is a problem of serious proportion. It cannot be denied that we grow in direct proportion to our personal activities through visitation, home studies, and other forms of teaching. We cannot ignore the power of personal contact in dealing with people.

Why is it then, that so few who are members of the church take the work of reaching the lost with the saving gospel of Christ as seriously as preachers wish they would? Why have most of our efforts as preachers evolved around attempts to constantly prod brethren to visit and teach? The answer is obvious: Congregations as a whole have not caught the vision “of turning the world upside down.” So much time is spent trying to “train” church members for acceptable labor that not much energy is left for converting unbelievers. But if we truly believe (as did the early church of the first century) in the great commission of our Lord we will leave no stone unturned in our efforts to go into all the world, beginning in our own community (Matt. 28:19-20).

We see the truth of this, but we do not feel it! We know what we ought to do, yet we have not felt the awfulness of the guilt of our failure. This simply points up the fact that it is not enough to convince brethren how the great commission applies to them and how practical it is for them to act it out in a sincere, genuine way-but we must “persuade men” just as one would in converting people to obey the gospel (Acts 2:40; 2 Cor. 5:11). We know full well that many brethren see their duty in this regard and still neglect it! So it takes some urging, some motivation some determination to act as we propose. A mere appeal to the feelings of the individual is not sufficient. But note that there is a big difference between motivation and manipulation. Too, some are masters at motivation (Jerry Falwell, etc.) who have yet to teach those they seek to move to become children of God (the only way to become a Christian is in response to the call of the gospel, or the motivations of the Lord, Acts 22:16; 2 Thess. 2:14)). There is truly a difference in biblical motivations for reaching the lost and the manipulations of men which appeal purely to emotions rather than reason. We must not manipulate-we must motivate!

What Is Motivation?

Motivation has been defined as giving “impetus to, to incite, to impel” (Webster). This involves “motive,” which in itself takes in the inner drive, or intention that causes one to act a certain way. “Persuasion” (often used as a synonym) is that process by which one is caused to do something by inducement, the urging or prevailing upon, especially by reason. In Let’s Go Fishing For Men, Homer Hailey cites a quotation that cuts to the heart of the concept of motivation, i.e., being led to action by inner forces and desires (p. 130), or more specifically, acting upon one’s feelings. Motivation comes from within. But it is not mere appeal to one’s feelings that brings the best motivational results. It is done by urging some motive for action.

Some motivational techniques are nothing more than carrot-and-stick approaches (reward and punishment). This does not work too well in personal work because there are not enough direct or visible rewards sufficient to get people into homes. To try to induce brethren to volunteer for personal work by using punishment (sometimes called a negative reinforcement) as an inducement only drives them further away. There is a difference in manipulating brethren to work and in conversion (2 Cor. 5:11). This is why the so-called “specialists” in the church, i.e., religious education ministers, campaign ministers, bus ministers, etc. are dangerous. Instead of specializing in the Bible where true motivation comes from in the first place, they have developed a sinful manipulation approach and the use of gimmickry. This approach to motivating brethren is based upon the belief that brethren act generally by forces that are not really connected with the thing they are trying to get brethren to accomplish (so they use a $5 bill under a bus seat, swallowing gold fish to stimulate attendance, etc.). The psychologists refer to this as extrinsic forces (Douglas McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise [New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960], pp. 33-34).

McGregor discusses another concept that is nearer the truth taught in the Bible (pp. 47-48). Applied to our discussion this simply means that brethren are willing to expend effort and will exercise self-control in the area of objectives to which they are committed. In other words, commitment as a Christian motivates him to do what God expects him to do. I must confess that while some understanding of motivational concepts is good, I am opposed to most of what I am seeing in the liberal churches (and occasionally among conservative brethren). So much of it constitutes something quite different from the “persuade men” concept of the Bible (2 Cor. 5:11).

There is yet a third concept of motivation, i.e., understanding why people do what they do (Susan Davidson Schaefer, The Motivation Process [Cambridge: Winthrop Publishers, 1977], p. 3). Some of the theories (whether they are accurate or not does not fall within the confines of this treatise) that move people to act are:

(1) The need to satisfy certain basic requirements. These are physiological: food, rest, shelter, need for safety, social relationships, self-esteem and self-actualization.

(2) The need for personal recognition, job importance and opportunity for advancement.

(3) “Cognitive dissonance, ” i.e., getting what you expect from others. Applied to the church this means that if we have faith and vision we will see things happen. We preachers need this if we are to motivate.

(4) “Personal causation, ” i.e., to cause changes in one’s environment as a primary motivator. This is where the “Social Gospel” concept enters into the picture of some of our brethren. Too, this very concept is reaping havoc in the Catholic Church right at this time (U.S. News & World Report, “Behind Struggle For Power Inside Catholic Church,” May 27, 1985, pp. 32-34).

Some Abuses Among Brethren

There is a wide range of manipulations often disguised as motivation. One illustration that we can all identify with is the “Closing Technique” that we all will have to develop in our personal work if we are going to get people to obey the gospel. As a result of personal work and evangelism “workshops” certain techniques are proposed in getting responses from people to whom we teach the Bible. Some of these methods detract from the gospel of Christ. For example, getting a person to write a letter to the Lord telling Him why he does not want to obey the gospel is not going to get that person to respond if he does not see his need as a sinner, the Lord’s blood as the saving power of God and obedience in baptism as a means of fulfilling his needs (Rom. 6:1-6; Acts 2:39; 22:16). Why can’t our brethren see that this is a cheap ploy that humiliates people to the point of grudging baptism?

Again, what good does it do to use the play, “start to leave.” If our Lord’s death on Calvary and His love is not sufficient motivation to a sinful heart, what makes us think that the threat to walk out of a Bible study will do the job? One needs to read Acts 2 for the Bible principle of what “pricks the heart.”

A correct method of getting a response to a home study is to ask, only after you are certain that the prospect knows the truth about obeying the gospel (2 Thess. 1:7-9): “Is there anything that is keeping you from obeying the gospel right now?” This helps the prospect get to the heart of the principle, “Today is the day of salvation” (2 Cor. 6:2).

It should also be noted that there is an increase in a type of emotionalism that is only slightly milder than Pentecostalism. This is being witnessed in some of the Crossroads (now referred to as “Disciple Making”) workshops, etc., where the calculated use of audience response is worked over: “yes, Lord,” “hallelujah,” “that’s right,” and other responses from both men and women. If space permitted we could add things like turning down the lights during certain parts of worship, clapping hands, swaying and weaving, etc. I have yet to learn how such externals motivate spirituality.

Proper Guidelines

There are indeed proper guidelines for motivating people to do personal work. These are the same as those that are used in the Bible to cause a person to obey the gospel. Brother Homer Hailey gives six of these in his “everyone should be a Christian” section of Let’s Go Fishing For Men (p. 136). To the things he lists as motivators, such things as glorifying God, family responsibility, debt to society, the profitableness of godliness, the value of one’s soul and you can’t get to heaven except through Jesus Christ, should be added the fact that just as Jesus drew disciples to Himself by grateful and loving affection, we should give ourselves up to Him by not only saving ourselves, but them that hear us (1 Tim. 4:16). This is the principle of love for love (1 Jn. 5:3; Jn. 15:9). I am saying that the very guidelines used in the Bible to persuade men to obey the gospel are those that should motivate us. to want to share salvation with others so that it can truly become a common salvation. I would urge you to go back and re-read my earlier installment, “Why Brethren Continue To Do Personal Work,” in this journal (Vol. 29, May 16, 1985, No. 10, pp. 304-305).

Conclusion

As we look at the problems of motivation in the field of personal evangelism, the following questions are in order. Are our efforts in teaching one-on-one relying on mere manipulation? Is the result of our efforts that of gaining a following for ourselves, or for the Lord? Are we more concerned about getting people to obey the gospel than we are in how many people we can convert in home studies? Most important of all, do we know when to exhort with many others words, “save thyself from this untoward generation” (Acts 2:40), instead of applying pressure in a furor of emotionalism?

This is about all I know about motivation. Now I wish someone would help me with the problem: “how do I motivate my brethren to do personal work.” I only know what is in the Bible. I know the principles of persuasion found therein are right because they are God’s principles. If they do not move us, nothing will. The authority of the Great Commission is the authority of the Divine Incarnate, the Voice of God Himself, speaking in the utterances of man with austere purity and tender sympathy: “Go ye into all the world. . .” Amen!*

*I wish to give credit to Roy H. Lanier, Jr., for much of the adapted material found in this writing which was taken from a tape, “Proper Motivation In Evangelistic Preaching.”

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 17, pp. 523, 536
September 5, 1985