Truth Magazine

By Robert F. Turner

As you know, the past few issues of Guardian of Truth have carried some of my articles, beginning with an explanation by the editor. The “usual stir” was expected, but phone calls and letters tell me of “raised eyebrows” and questions about “who has changed.” I had hoped to “blend in”, to this new job with a number of “less than personal” type articles, but apparently the public wants something more; so Guardian of Truth readers may expect a few lines on circumstances leading up to my accepting the invitation of the editor and board members to write for Guardian of Truth. I will also consider some of the readers’ current questions.

For the past twenty years I have edited Plain Talk (many years writing eight articles per month), and most of that time I was preaching over thirty meetings per year. Then, health forced me to cut back on meetings (fifteen this year), so I taught “upper division” classes at Florida College for four fall semesters, and continued meetings in “free” time. When I began full-time meeting work, being seldom at home, I dropped subscriptions to “the papers,” seeing only a few lines here and there as I visited in homes. No effort was made to “keep up” with the latest scraps or “write-ups”-and I can’t say I missed them all that much. It was three months after the fact before I discovered I had been a victim in one paper; and I did not know I had been mentioned in the Guardian of Truth until studying back issues while considering this writing assignment. (Editors and writers should learn that only a small clan of readers are waiting anxiously for our next issue. Most of the brethren could not care less what we say.)

But I travel widely, talk with a lot of brethren, and have not been blind to the fact that so-called “brotherhood” journals among conservatives have undergone some bad days. Many preachers and others who once “kept up” with the papers, now tell me, “I do not read them”; and the tone of voice says, “I do not intend to start again.” That is a genuine “issue” for all editors and writers, including myself; for despite my non-reading days, I am convinced the written word is still a powerful tool, and can be used for the good of all. But that is an “issue” that can not be solved by “fussing” at it. There must be reasons for reader apathy among sound brethren who once profited by “the papers.” I would like to try to determine these causes and have part in providing the proper remedy. And to me, these are grounds for welcoming an invitation to use this medium.

A paper wields a tremendous influence on its clientele, and through them, on the church. This is not to say “influence” itself is bad, but to call attention to our responsibilities. A paper may become a “flag” about which a sectarian party rallies and by which the brotherhood is fragmented; or it can play down “self” and become salt and light to build up and strengthen all who will be exercised thereby. It is no secret that papers (like preachers, schools, etc.) have not always used their influence properly. A goodly portion of non-readers who have expressed themselves to me, seem to believe the brotherhood would be better off without the papers. Being a bit “independent” myself, there are times when I almost agree — but not for long. We should not let abuses of a good thing destroy its principle and usefulness.

Many brethren blame the papers for “pseudo-issues” that keep us in a constant turmoil. Sometimes I am tempted to think an editor may have “stirred up something” to create interest, and sell papers. This is a serious charge and may be unprovable. It is far more charitable to say an editor has used poor judgment in writing and selecting material to publish. Some writers seem to delight in pouncing on one another (do they feel it makes them look “sound” or “militant”?), and this can spread a fire before the danger is realized. The readers are to blame also, for some search for idnew issues” like a merchant man seeking goodly pearls. The next “mqior issue ” may be our taste for “issues. ” Unfortunately, one such blunder is enough to sour many readers on a paper; and, more important, it may keep them from reading sorely needed material on genuine docinnalproblems. It is the old story of “crying wolf” and destroying our usefulness as guardians of truth.

The editor and writers of a paper are not more God’s “police force” than any other brother or sister. Yet, each of us has an obligation to teach the truth, positively and negatively, in keeping with our ability and opportunity, The problems of our generation will not be solved either by ignoring them or by prancing around the polemic ring in carnal battles. Smart Alec remarks have never “saved the church.” The One Savior must be followed, in spirit as well as in truth, in private fife and from the pulpit. And we must see the printed word as but an extension of public teaching-a proven medium for embalming truth and conveying it to the hearts of men and women.

I believe loving one’s enemies means treating them fairly and ethically, as “you would that men should do to you”; and that this is the best and only way to overcome them for Christ. Surely that principle applies to brethren or any others who may “differ” with my material; and Guardian of Truth readers’ help in maintaining a proper attitude is sincerely solicited. My writing is usually condensed, may take a second reading in places, but you should feel no hesitancy in questioning it. I would like to think we could study together for mutual profit, learning and growing in the process.

I welcome the invitation from Guardian of Truth, to use their medium for teaching the public. The editor assures me of fair, ethical treatment; I believe him; and will work with this medium so long as those conditions prevail. No restrictions have been placed on me regarding subject matter, and because of popular requests, my next article will offer comments on “walking in the light.” I plan to continue my usual practice of Scripture studies and observations on this and other matters I feel will help folk get to heaven. I have been known to tint my articles and sermons with a bit of what is hopefully called “humor,” but never have I felt teaching God’s truth is anything other than serious business. I want to thank brother Willis and all others who have encouraged me in this new venture, and pledge to do all I can to present truly scriptural and usable material. It will be my pleasure to meet and know Guardian of Truth readers, and correspondence from you will be welcomed.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 17, pp. 519-520
September 5, 1985

By Weldon E. Warnock

And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment; that ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ. Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which am by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God (Phil. 1:9-11).

Here, in Paul’s prayer for the Philippians there are three things to which I direct your attention: (1) Love must be properly directed, (2) the purposes of directed love, and (3) the expression of abounding love.

The Direction

Christians are to overflow with love or have an abundance of love. This is the meaning of the word “abounding.” But this love must be channeled and it must act judiciously. An old trite saying is, “Love is blind.” This certainly is not true in regard to Bible love. Love is discriminatory. It is to abound in knowledge and in all judgment or discernment.

Love and knowledge are indispensable to one another. Paul wrote, “Knowledge puffeth up but charity edifieth” (1 Cor. 8:1). Knowledge must be mellowed with love. The same apostle also stated that if we have all knowledge and have not love, we are nothing (1 Cor. 13:2). On the other hand, love needs knowledge for guidance and discretion.

The child of God needs to know whom to love and how to love. This he obtains from a study of the Word of God. The Bible tells us that we are to love God with all our heart, soul and mind and our neighbor as ourselves (Matt. 22:37-40). How we go about this is distinctly outlined in the Scriptures.

The Purposes

The reasons for discernible love are plainly set forth in verse 10. (1) The first reason is that ye may approve the things that are excellent. The word “approve” in the original language is the word which was used for testing metal or a coin to see whether it was pure or genuine or unalloyed. Discernible love tests the issues of life to see what is excellent or good. The footnote on this text states, “distinguish the things that differ.” Love gives us keen perception (through the Bible) to eliminate the good from the bad, the important from the unimportant, the trivial from those things that really do matter.

(2) The second reason for discernible love is that we may be sincere. The word “sincere” comes from two Latin words (sine, without) and (cera, wax) and means “without wax). Albert Barnes states that sina cera is “honey which is pure and transparent.” The idea is that Christians are to be free from the impurities of the world.

In the Greek, William Barclay stated that the word means either (a) that which is able to stand the test of sunshine by exposing it to the sun’s bright light without any flaw appearing or (b) to whirl around in a sieve until all impurities are extracted (Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, p. 19). Regardless which one is meant, the thought of purity is indicated and the word “pure” could correctly be used in the place of “sincere.” In fact, some translations have “pure.”

(3) The third reason for discernible love is that we may be without offence. R.C.H. Lenski wrote that the debate regarding this word is “whether this is active or passive, offering damage or undamaged, ‘uninjured’ ourselves. Both meanings are found, here the context favors the latter” (St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, and Philippians, p. 719). Barclay interprets it to be damage to others.

If Lenski is right it means that we are to live an undamaged life, that is, we are to avoid being morally injured by the sinful obstacles of life. If Barclay is correct, it means that we are not to say things or do things which cause others to stumble. Barclay made two good points in this connection when he wrote that there are people so harsh and austere that they in the end drive people away from Christianity, and secondly, there are people who are good, but they are so critical of others that they repel other people from goodness.

We can profit from both views on Paul’s usage of this word “offence” in verse 10. The Bible teaches both, although only one is meant in the passage under investigation.

The Expression

When love abounds the lives of Christians are filled with the fruits of righteousness. This is how love expresses itself. “Righteousness” stipulates the quality of the fruit, and being filled with this kind, it leaves no room for fruit of another character. The quality of righteousness is determined by the Lord’s will or His commandments.

The spiritual harvest will consist of “love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance” (Gal. 5:22-23), and as William Hendriksen suggested, “works which result from these dispositions.” Jesus said, “Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples” (Jn. 15:8). Some of us are failing in fruit-bearing, especially the winning of souls to Christ.

The source of life for the fruit we bear is Jesus Christ. He brought us into a spiritual relationship and enables us to produce fruit unto the glory and praise of God. To honor and adore God is the chief aim and end of man (cf. Matt. 5:16).

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 17, pp. 515-516
September 5, 1985

By Mike Willis

The nod few Issues of Guardian of Truth will contain editorials examining the question of whether or not the church is authorized by God to use mechanical instruments of music in worship. Someone will surely ask, I ‘Why are you devoting so much space to a discussion of this issue which has long been settled among our brethren?” And the question may be justifiable considering I am aware of only a few liberal churches which have changed their practice to include using mechanical Instruments of music in worship over a period of twenty years. Most members of the church are opposed to using mechanical instruments of music, by reason of what the Scriptures teach; unfortunately some only oppose it because of tradition (i.e., “we’ve never used them before”). Returning to the original question, why have I chosen to devote space to this subject? This article of introduction will give evidences that indicate a shift in the thinking of our liberal brethren regarding using mechanical instruments of music in worship has occurred.

In recent years, liberal brethren have been participating in unity forums with members of the independent Christian Churches, much like the unity forums arranged by Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett several years ago. In the unity forums that generally have been arranged, the most liberal preachers among the church of Christ are invited to participate with the Christian Church preachers.

Such a unity meeting was held in Joplin, MO in August 1984. The reports of that meeting by those associated with the Christian Church were Slowing. The Christian Standard stated:

Not all of the reactions to these meetings have been positive, however. Some church of Christ periodicals have denounced the gatherings, or at least questioned whether they can accomplish anything. Some Christian church people are also reluctant to become involved. But among the mainstream of both groups, there is undoubtedly a grassroots unity movement going on, despite the reservations of some (Christian Standard [5 May 1985], p. 3).

The Joplin meeting was followed up by a meeting at the Garnett Road church in Tulsa, OK on 18-20 March 1985. Approximately 100 representatives from the liberal churches of Christ and the independent Christian Churches met. Here are some of the comments about the meeting:

If I had to summarize the results of the Tulsa Forum in a nutshell, I would say that we became convinced that whenever we disagreed on these issues, we would maintain fellowship as brothers, and refrain from binding our opinions or positions on these issues on each other. No user of instrumental music even hinted that a capella congregations should install a piano, and no a capella congregation asked instrumental congregations to remove the instruments. Once that degree of acceptance is achieved throughout the world, the future for fellowship is bright. At the grass roots, I’m convinced that such a degree of acceptance has existed for some time (William Pile, Christian Church, Good News [May 19851, p. 6).

Where will it lead? . . . From a better perspective my guess is that it will lead to a recognition among us that we do not have a clear and express statement from the Lord on it and thus may not make it a test of discipleship, and a recognition among instrumental brethren that we do have a case against its use that is substantial enough to justify its rejection by all who accept our “law of exclusion.” This is understanding and will result in a more united front on behalf of the many basic truths on which we do agree, more cooperation in projects that are worthy, and more carefulness in both camps that we be considerate of the other’s viewpoint (Olan Hicks, “Unity Conference In Tulsa,” News & Notes [5 April 1985], pp. 4-5).

That brother Hicks’ assessment was accurate regarding joint participation in projects was soon evident. In the 3 February 1985 issue of Christian Standard, an editorial appeared in which Christian Churches were urged to send funds for famine relief in Ethiopia through the Whites Ferry church in West Monroe, LA. The Christian Churches and churches of Christ joined hands in this benevolent work. What could work in Ethiopia in the realm of benevolence could work as well in the United States in any other area of common work.

Shortly after the Tulsa meeting, the Christian Standard carried an announcement of Reuel Lemmon’s new paper Image. Its managing editor, Denny Boultinghouse, was quoted as describing the paper as follows: “We do see Image as being a magazine designed to build bridges among brethren” (Christian Standard [12 May 1985], p. 3). Image reports that 80 writers will be contributing articles for publication. The next issue of Christian Standard announced another unity forum was held on the campus of Pepperdine University 16-19 April 1985 (Christian Standard [19 May 1985], p. 3). The following week, the Christian Standard published a glowing report of the Tulsa, OK meeting (Ibid., [26 May 19851, pp. 4-6). A fair assessment of the report seems to be that the conservative Christian Churches are ecstatic about what they see occurring among the liberal churches of Christ.

On the other hand, the liberal churches are beginning to manifest signs of division. The Spiritual Sword, Contending For The Faith, Firm Foundation, The Defender, The Restorer and several other journals are alarmed that those brethren who have participated in these unity forums seem willing to accept unity in diversity with reference to the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship. They are writing about the compromisers among them.

The problem has extended to the editorial leadership of the Gospel Advocate. Brother Guy N. Woods expressed his dissatisfaction with the unity forums and reprinted brother H. Leo Boles’ speech which he delivered in the midst of the Witty-Murch unity meetings of the 1930-1940s. Shortly thereafter, there was an announcement that brother Woods was being replaced as editor of the Gospel Advocate by Furman Kearley (Gospel Advocate [6 June 19851, p. 3). Brother Kearley opened his editorial work by trying to convince the liberal brethren that he was “sound.” In doing so, he had to reply to the following taped conversation from his participation in the Joplin unity forum:

Kearley: The aspect of the isolation is lack of knowledge of our history. If we could start in our congregations doing some more studies in Restoration History outside of our own branch and look at the distinctions between the conservative instrumentalists and the Christian Church . . . (sentence unfinished).

Kilpatrick: I wonder, too, if bringing Christian Church preachers in for a class like this might be good. Let them come in and tell their history in a class situation. I think you could ease from the class to the pulpit.

Kearley: Right! And you could get by with telling history.

Kilpatrick: Yeah.

Kearley: . . . whereas if they were telling doctrine-heh, heh, heh.

Kilpatrick: And while they are telling history, they could tell enough doctrine to let us know that, hey, we believe alike so much of it. So that may be a beginning point: in the classroom (F. Furman Kearley, Gospel Advocate [18 July 1985], p. 432).

His explanation of this “misunderstood dialogue” leaves many unanswered questions and will likely prove unsatisfactory to the “conservative” members of the liberal churches. The affirmation that we are divided simply because we do not understand the differences between the “conservative Christian Church” and the “Disciples of Christ” is inaccurate. We divided from each other before there was a distinction between the “conservative Christian Church” and “Disciples of Christ.” Those who imply our division exists because we were not aware of these differences may accurately depict their ignorance of those in the Christian Church but should not imply that all of us share that ignorance. I for one have been aware of the distinctive groups within the Christian Church for years and stand opposed to each fellowship of them because of their departures from sound doctrine. Knowing that the “conservative Christian Churches” are opposed to the “Disciples of Christ” is not news or a reason for “tending to them the “right hand of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9).

I have been able to detect absolutely no movement among the Christian Churches to give up the instrument. Hence, any unity which can be attained and maintained with them must be one which tolerates the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship. This is the disposition which has developed among our liberal brethren and might develop among us. I think that we are generally agreed that using mechanical instruments of music in worship is sinful. However, some have begun to waver in their belief that those who use them in their worship will be eternally lost for using them. Some have said that so long as those who use them are good, honest, and sincere that they are “continually cleansed by the blood of Christ” and are in fellowship with God. If these brethren can maintain fellowship with God while continuing the practice of their sin, defending it as an act of righteousness, and encouraging others to join with them in the practice of their sin, surely they can also be fellowshipped by God’s children. When this kind of tolerance is embraced, we will be in the same sad condition as our liberal brethren.

With the hope that we can be reminded of the seriousness of all sin, and especially the sin of introducing unauthorized items into our worship, I have written a series of articles concerning the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship which begins with the next issue. We need to be reminded that a new generation not grounded in these matters has been raised. Brethren, let us not fail to teach them what the Bible says on this and other fundamental Bible subjects.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 17, pp. 514, 533, 535
September 5, 1985

By Bill Cavender

Dear brethren __________ and __________,

Your letters to me, printed in the July 4, 1985, issue of Guardian of Truth, were appreciated greatly. In this “letter” to you, I will especially address only one of you. In planning to write five or six “letters” in this series, there will be matters discussed which each of you suggested or raised in your letters to me. It is my hope and prayer that by publicly printing your letters, and mine to you, that the cause of Christ may be benefitted and well-served as brethren read and think on these things.

Your letter, brother ___________, seems to convey your great discouragements as you set out to be a “full-time” preacher, with all the sincerity and zeal which should accompany preaching the gospel, whether we are younger or older. Yet because of the initial discouragements which came to you, and which come to all preachers who really try to do God’s work of preaching the truth, you have chosen to “never be a full-time preacher again,” unless you are financially independent. You have gone back to college to work “on my master’s degree,” and to “preach part-time with the brethren” in _________, Texas.

I doubt, brother __________, that you gave yourself enough time as a “full-time” preacher to really understand the life, work and problems of a preacher, to learn how to deal with discouragements and problems, and, on the other hand, to know and realize the blessings and joys that come to those who fully give themselves to the Lord’s work. I am now in my thirty-ninth year of preaching Christ in this world, thirty-six of those years being in “full-time” work as a “full-time” preacher, fully and completely supported by wages from my brethren. (I have never had any business or sources of income in addition to wages paid to me by brethren. More on this later.) In looking back over those years now, from the vantage point of more maturity, understanding, and experience, I know for sure that the joys have far outweighed the sorrows, the friends are far more numerous than the enemies, the blessings of God far greater than any sacrifices I have made, and the encouragements from kind, loving brethren to do my best have far exceeded the discouragements of unthinking, unkind brethren who would hurt if they could. The Lord has blessed me a hundred-fold as He promised. “There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel’s, but he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life” (Mk. 10:28-30). 1 believe all faithful preachers of age and experience can and would say the same.

Yet, as a young preacher, like you, I had so many discouragements. People whom I loved and trusted proved untrue in many cases. Brethren turned against me in various places and at times when my intentions only were to preach the truth, save souls and build the church of Christ, and when I only wanted to do good to and for those people. I, and other preachers of my age and time, caught the full fury of the liberal-institutional-orphan home-college in the budget-Herald of Truth-centralization of churches and funds-social gospel-modernism controversies in the late forties, and through the fifties and sixties. As young preachers, inexperienced, so many of us had to learn so quickly, preach and teach on these issues, take a stand and fight, and then suffer the consequences of loving Christ, His truth and His church more than the wisdom, praises and institutions of men. To be fired for preaching the truth, to have wages cut off, to have meetings cancelled (I had seventeen meetings cancelled in 1958-60), to be ostracized, black-balled and quarantined by churches and brethren who had previously been close friends and beloved brethren in the Lord, brethren whose homes, hearths and hearts had been so freely given and shared, and then to be treated as a heathen and enemy by such brethren made for most-trying times for so many of us. In fact, about 1953-54, when I had preached for six or seven years, I became so discouraged with all that was happening in the churches and among the brethren and to me personally, that I seriously thought of quitting preaching, going back to college and completing my pre-medical studies, and trying to be a doctor. A kinsman offered to pay my way, all my expenses, even with my wife and child, if I would do so. But I didn’t. My wife would have none of it and stood her ground that I must preach. I have never since regretted that decision. These experiences were a part of maturing and enduring, and were beneficial to me. Yet, at the time, like chastisement (Heb. 12:5-11), none of these problems and events seemed to be joyous or helpful. Yet, in time, they yielded the joys and “peaceable fruit of righteousness” which our loving Father intends (Heb. 12:11).

I said all of this, brother _________, not to give you a history nor to claim any hardships more than others, but just to let you see that all of us, all brethren, and especially preachers, have trials and temptations, difficulties, and problems. We must learn to face them and overcome them. None of us, younger or older, ever escapes them. We all need to face and defeat discouragements that beset us so we can learn patience and wisdom, and cultivate the hope which our God and Father desires, so we can have a crown of life at the last day (Rom. 5:1-8; Jas. 2:1-12; 2 Tim. 4:5-8, Rom. 8:24-25). There are still times in my life when I become discouraged and heartsick when I see sin and unnecessary strife, divisions, ill-will and fightings among so-called “sound” and “conservative” brethren who once stood shoulder to shoulder, as one man, in the truth and in vital controversies which really were worth fighting for. Now so many brethren are fighting over foolish ideas and opinions, and majoring in minors. If I were a young preacher at the present time, I imagine I would be far more discouraged over these divisive matters than I was thirty-five and forty years ago over those far-reaching digressions from God’s word. With the prophet I still sometimes want to say, “Oh that I had in the wilderness a lodging place of wayfaring men; that I might leave my people and go from them” (Jer. 9:2). Yet never do I entertain the idea of quitting or changing or doing less than the best I can. To do that would mean the loss of eternal life, for which “we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, specially of those that believe” (1 Tim. 4:10).

I know your uncles and your cousin, brother ________, and I know they are men who have suffered for righteousness’ sake, in hard places, one of them overseas for many years, doing the work of evangelists. Two of them are “full-time” preachers; one is a “part-time” preacher, as you now refer to yourself (more on these distinctions later). I know that the “part-time” preacher uncle of yours may be even now considering going back into “full-time” preaching. And I hope he does I All good men, giving all the time they possibly can find for study, visiting, working and preaching, are greatly needed.

More than any of us now, and more than any preacher since the apostolic period, were those great men of faith and obedience of old who suffered oppositions and endured persecutions in their lifetimes, yet they never turned back. I doubt anyone ever encountered more oppositions nor became more discouraged than Elijah and Jeremiah. Only our Lord Himself was opposed more, enduring even to the shedding of His precious blood. I try to remember the trials and temptations of Enoch, Noah, Abel, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Hezekiah, Josiah, Elijah, Elisha, Jeremiah, John the immerser, the apostles, Paul, and more than all, the Son of God Himself, our Savior. Had they not endured all things, had they become discouraged to the point of turning back or doing less than they could, they would have failed and we would be unsaved, lost forever in the endless eternity of a devil’s hell. If the afflictions of the great apostle to the Gentiles were “light,” how much more are ours infinitesimally so (2 Cor. 4:16-18). In all our national history, the United States of America has been by far the most materially blessed country which has ever existed, and the Christian in America, at any time, has been the most materially blessed person who has ever lived. But so many of us forget (or perhaps we never learned) that 6 ‘unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required” (Lk. 12:48; Mt. 13:12). We never really have any great problems which God our Father cannot solve if we are devoted and entirely faithful to Him. We have never faced what the early pioneer preachers and brethren encountered in our own country, let alone other countries of the world. Materialism, to a great degree, blinds us to reality.

I do not mean to imply, brother __________, that a man must be a “full-time” preacher in order to serve the Lord and go to heaven. Every Christian must be a “full-time” child of God, putting the King and His kingdom first in her heart, life and work. Whether in the office, in industry, in school, on the farm, in the store, in the truck, on the highway, in the professional building, etc., he must be faithful and true to Him who called us to partake of His glory. “But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy” (1 Pet. 4:13; 2 Pet. 1:3-14; Heb. 12:10; 2 Cor. 1:7; Col. 1: 12). Yet the work of Jesus more and more needs to be done as the world becomes more sinful and people are multiplied upon the earth. Never have there been more people, souls in the world and therefore the increased need for laborers, preachers, students, elders, teachers, and all Christians giving all the time and effort they possibly can directly to the work of Christ.

In my own thinking and vocabulary, I’ve tried not to incorporate the terms “full-time” and “part-time” preacher. I know, and have known, men who work with their hands for their own livelihood, yet find more time to study, preach, visit, debate, and do personal work than many “full-time” men do. I know, and have known, many men who give their complete interests and time to study, preaching, visiting and working for Christ, and who depend upon brethren and churches for their livelihood (1 Cor. 9:1-19; Gal. 6:6; Acts 18:1-3; 20:33-35; 2 Cor. 11:8-9; Phil. 4:14-18). 1 fault no one in the path they choose and the route they take in life. (Truthfully, I have at times wished I was financially independent, and not dependent upon the brethren for wages and a livelihood.) Some “part-time” preachers and some “fulltime” ones are lazy, trifling, and indolent. But I do know that every one of us shall give account to God at the judgment bar of Jesus for our time, abilities, work and attitude toward Jesus and His kingdom (Matt. 25:1-13; Rev. 20:11-15; Ecc. 12:13-14; 2 Cor. 5:10; Rom. 14:10-12). For myself I long ago chose the course which you call “fulltime” preaching, completely dependent upon the brethren for my livelihood. I would not and could not now choose any other course. You have chosen, at present, the way of service to Christ by schooling, work or teaching for a livelihood. You hope to be an elder of a congregation sometime, somewhere, preaching the gospel all the while in these years of preparation. This is fine. I admire you and am happy for you. You can save your soul by so doing, if this use of your life and time is the very best use you can make of it, and you can render the best and fullest service to our Father in this manner.

In my observations, however, brother _____________, I have noted that it is generally true (there are exceptions) that the men who are “full-time” preachers are the ones who do the most, hardest, and best studying, the best writing, the best debating, the most teaching and preaching, and exert the most influence (for good or for bad) in the Lord’s kingdom. This was true in the days of the apostles, and it has been true in the history of the church in our own country. Paul said to Timothy, “Give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine . . . Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all” (1 Tim. 4:12-16). This inspired advice is the best advice. This is not to argue that such men (“full-time” preachers) are more valuable than others. I’m not saying that. But I am saying that in my judgment, in the over-all picture, the men who have the most time to use their minds, time, tongues and pens in learning and disseminating the truth of Christ, do the better job of it. So many, many brethren have told me through the years how they wish they had begun preaching I when they were younger, and wish they had given “fulltime” to the work of preaching. There are drawbacks and discouragements, problems and setbacks, no matter what we do in fife, whatever work, calling or profession we have, or try to accomplish. Even in being an elder of a congregation there are problems, as you will rind out later if you attain to your goal. Do your best. Do all you can. Be faithful, and endure hardships as a good soldier of Jesus Christ (2 Tim. 2:3-4; 1 Cor. 4:2). (To be continued.)

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 17, pp. 521-523
September 5, 1985