Truth Magazine

Reprinted From The Christian Chronicle, May 1985

“Give, but give wisely,” seems to be the best advice offered by people with experience in benevolence.

No one claims it is possible to avoid fraud entirely, but “the Lord knows our motives are right” is no excuse for inadequate research, they say.

Here’s the best of the advice we found:

– Don’t rush. If you are being rushed, something may be wrong.

– Insist on positive identification including a social security number.

– Don’t be afraid. Ask the hard questions. If they are offended, that’s a good sign something is wrong.

– Be cautious when callers seem to have a wide acquaintance with brotherhood names, elders, issues, etc. These are used to disarm. Do not accept them as proof.

– Be sure to check phone numbers given for references. Call forwarding can be used to redirect calls to others involved in the confidence game.

– Never give money. If you purchase a ticket, mark it “non-negotiable for cash.”

– Let one person handle benevolence. Consistency and experience reduce fraud.

– Be wary of references who cannot be reached. Professionals often give references who are on vacation.

– Be objective when dealing with emotional requests like “the stranded, new Christian,” holiday pleas, etc. “it is much better not to get emotionally involved,” said Bill Mealer, head of the benevolence program at Madison, Tenn. Church of Christ.

– Be aware that criminals often impersonate faithful Christians. Be sure to check telephone numbers and identities carefully.

– Always call nearby churches and congregations to see if they have received similar requests. Share information, networking helps to foil dishonest schemes.

Said Robert Sharpe, author of a charitable-giving guide, “Before You Give Another Dime:” “By not demanding accountability, the individual makes charitable mismanagement possible.”

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 12, p. 372
June 20, 1985

Reprinted From The Christian Chronicle, May 1985

Churches of Christ are “sitting ducks” for professional confidence artists.

That’s the word from a man who says he has conned churches of $1 million.

Last month, in a rare glimpse into the world of extortion, an ex-convict talked about big-time benevolence fraud among churches of Christ.

A nation-wide telephone scam, revealed in March by Central Telephone Company officials, showed hundreds of churches of Christ have been bilked out of thousands of dollars earmarked for the needy.

After reading about the scheme in the March issue of the Chronicle, a man who identified himself as John Swain, called reporters to offer information.

For more than nine years Swain said he worked with a ring of professionals who specialized in church and charity fraud. Eventually he was sent to prison where he came in contact with Bible study materials and where he became a Christian, he said.

Swain, who was released less than six months ago, estimates he fraudulently collected more than $8W,000 from churches. Now he says he wants the church “to be aware of the problem and help dry up their (criminals’) sources.”

“I am very impressed by John,” said Dan Smith, a church leader in Reno, Nev. “I suggested he contact the Chronicle because he has an important story to tell. ” Shortly after his prison release, Swain lived with Smith for a brief time.

“There is no way I can notify all the different places where I did things that were wrong, that I’m a Christian now, and I’m sorry,” said Swain.

He believes Christians do not realize “how organized and professional some con games have become.” For nine years he said he was involved with a ring of 20-30 individuals who met every three months for an extensive planning session. Swain said the group continues to meet.

“They plot out the next three months, assign every con an area to work in, decide what churches will be hit, and what con they will use.”

Although several denominations and charities are regularly victimized, “churches of Christ are among the easiest and most susceptible to conning because they are so independent of each other,” said Swain. “Most of them don’t even make a phone call to check with each other.”

According to Swain, professional confidence men develop extensive files on church groups: names of congregational leaders; lectureship dates; lists of brotherhood personalities; names of administrators of Christian colleges, even information on current issues.

“They don’t miss a trick,” he said.

Armed with an extensive knowledge of the church, a polished and persuasive manner, they go after churches and are often successful.

Swain said confidence artists not only tailor their spiel to the church they are working, but they also “make seasonable adjustments in the amount of their requests.”

After tax season, money is tight, so they ask for less and increase the volume of calls. However, Swain said, during the holiday season “nobody asks questions. They can easily got $400 to $500 from a single church.”

Swain believes benevolence workers should be careful about references that are eagerly offered.

“Lots of times cons will go to the trouble of finding out when certain individuals are on vacation. Then they will give those names as references, knowing they can’t be reached.

“I think churches should also beware when people start throwing around names of people all over the brotherhood,” said Swain. “That is a tip-off they may be pulling a con.”

Another trick used by professionals is automatic call forwarding used to redirect a church’s call to a crony who then plays the part of the reference.

“Our group found out they could work several churches of Christ-even in the same town-and not got caught,” said Swain.

“I just wish churches would learn to call each other because people with good intentions are throwing away millions,” Swain said.

According to Swain, professionals have modernized their operations. Computer are now used to keep track of their “schemes and responses so there won’t be any doubling up.”

“These people are so shrewd . . . but we could make it more difficult for them if we would take the time to check with other churches,” Swain said.

– Joy L. McMillion

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 12, p. 372
June 20, 1985

By Irven Lee

There are capable men, both young and old, who have an earnest desire to go into areas where there are very few, if any, members of the Lord’s church. They know that many are supported to work in such areas, so they seek help that they may be supported to give full time to such an effort. Who could condemn this?

It seems that the more ideal situation exists when men go to the field to plant the truth and churches on their own send to them. Paul worked with his own hands making tents until help came. His letters were expressions of gratitude rather than appeals for help. His work in earning for himself became an example by which he did some of his teaching. (Please read Phil. 4:10-19; 2 Thess. 3:7-12; Acts 18:14; 20:33-35; 2 Cor. 11:7-12.)

It would be good if more strong men realized that they could go into special fields of need and work with their own hands while serving the Lord. Some of the best work that I have done in the Lord’s church may have been in the two decades in which I taught math in high schools. It did take some day and night work, but that was not new (Acts 20:31; 2 Thess. 3:8). The time may be approaching in this worldly generation when more good preachers will have to “make tents.”

What do men actually do who go to preach in areas away from those who support them? Paul said, “I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publicly and from house to house” (Acts 20:17-35). Many faithful men, in a similar way, stay busy today. Study is one important way one can occupy his time in this age when men are not inspired. There should be a happy balance between time spent in study and time spent with people. Do some preachers who are in the “mission field” spend heir time very much as retired people do?

People who desire support to go preach should look first among those who know them. Paul was supported by those who knew and loved him. If a man we have never seen or heard of calls us by telephone to ask us if we would help him find twenty-four thousand dollars per year to be sent to him in some area we know nothing about, we are at a loss to find any positive answer. If he people who know him well do not support him, should we? There may be a few who count the support the primary aspect of their mission. They are bored by secular work.

Some should not go into difficult fields because of their lack of knowledge, faith, zeal, willingness to work, common sense or wisdom, etc. Elders need to know what they are doing and whom they are supporting when they dispense the funds. The supply of funds is not inexhaustible, and there are many good works to be supported.

Some churches accumulate many thousands of dollars in the banks to the great benefit of the banks and with no good spiritual reason. This is a big world, and we need to do what we can to help. The sick world needs word from the great Physician. Is there any sign of wisdom in storing back funds in the bank? Is indifference, selfishness, or some other reason back of this? Some churches who are much troubled by lack of unity may have trouble agreeing on where and to whom the money should be sent. People give more when good use is being made of the funds.

In some areas churches are giving to many good people so that their checking accounts are low. There must be an increase in contributions or no more promises of help. It is sad but true that some churches have reached a point of zero growth. They grew in numbers for a while and in the spirit of giving as their incomes increased. There is danger that they will lose their first love as they come to be satisfied and will cease to put forth special effort to evangelize their own communities. Their giving to evangelists in other fields may become a sort of form with little interest in the work being supported. This is a sad note. Some wells of support are drying up.

One who receives financial help should write a thank you note often and include information on efforts, accomplishments, and problems for the maintaining of interest and concern in the supporting church. Any church that is putting thousands of dollars into a work each year certainly deserves to hear what is happening at the other end of the line. Some through ingratitude, thoughtlessness, or some other cause can hardly be persuaded to report with any regularity. Would it be all right to stop sending the checks?

Some who preach need to go far from those who support them because their conduct, disposition, and lack of zeal are such that the supporting churches would not support them if they knew them better. Let us give thanks for the many effective workers who are grateful to the supporting churches and happy in seeing the fruits of their labors where they work. Keep the good work going. Such good workers (laborers) are worthy of their hire.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 13, p. 391
July 4, 1985

By Marshall A. Patton

In brother Diestelkamp’s second article on the issue of continual cleansing entitled “A Necessary Negative,” he quotes a paragraph from a personal letter from brother Willis which in his judgment is a clear, concise, summation of brother Willis’ position. He then proceeds to reply by reviewing the paragraph sentence by sentence, numbering the sections of his reply.

In section one, in reply to brother Willis’ statement “that anytime a Christian sins he dies spiritually,” brother Diestelkamp presents a picture of things brethren in the Corinthian church were guilty of and then says, “Yet Paul addressed them in the first chapter of his first epistle to them with very endearing terms and with no indication that they were dead spiritually.” Brother Diestelkamp needs to look again, because there is a clear indication that the guilty individuals were spiritually dead. He has failed to distinguish between the church and church action and individuals within the church who were guilty of sin. How long before God removes the candlestick of a church (Rev. 2:5) for its failure in duty is another issue. Those guilty of immorality were to be “delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” The spirit (soul) of the guilty was lost and needed to be saved – in spite of the endearing terms used in addressing the church. Those guilty of misusing the Lord’s Supper were eating and drinking damnation to themselves (1 Cor. 11:29) – in spite of the endearing terms used in addressing the church. While there is further evidence, this suffices to show that the guilty in Corinth were spiritually dead, Brother Diestelkamp’s concept, when “tried on for size,” is a misfit in the light of scriptural examination.

In the same paragraph he appeals to Peter and Paul as examples of Christians who sinned yet were not lost at the time they sinned. This, too, will not bear up under the light of scriptural examination. His example of Peter is found in Galatians 2:11f. The primary design of the second chapter of Galatians is to show that a Christian cannot be justified by the works of the law; that Christians ought not to revert to it so as to imply that justification was by such law keeping. Peter’s action was an example of such. Hence, Paul said, “I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed (“stood condemned,” ASV) . . . If thou being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” (Gal. 2:11-14). Furthermore, such action while seeking justification by Christ causes one to be found a sinner and makes Christ the minister of sin (v. 17). No wonder Paul adds: “God forbid” (v. 17). That is not all. Paul shows further that by reverting to his former life one was building again the things formerly destroyed and thereby made himself a transgressor (v. 18); that such frustrates the grace of God and makes the death of Christ in vain (v. 21). Yet, all that brother Diestelkamp sees in this is a little “scolding” from Paul.

His use of Paul and Romans 7:14-25; 1 Corinthians 9:26, 27 misses the truth just as badly. The Romans passage does not refer to Paul as a Christian! By use of the personal pronoun “I,” he personifies mankind apart from Christ and he refers to himself while he was without Christ. Verse fourteen makes this evident: “. . .I am carnal, sold under sin.” The “I” here is one bought and owned by sin – in bondage to sin – hence, without Christ. No matter how much such a person strives to attain unto righteousness, he fails and can only cry: “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” (v. 24). Paul immediately answers in verse twenty five: “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” He then presents a picture of freedom in Christ in the beginning of chapter eight: “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus . . . For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the tlaw of sin and death” (Rom. 8:1, 2). These verses present a contrast between bondage and freedom, between one without Christ and one in Christ. It certainly is not a picture of one spiritually alive while at the same time he is sinning. Again, it is the size of brother Diestelkamp’s argument that does not fit in the light of a textual and contextual study.

1 Corinthians 9:26, 27 implies victory, not defeat, over temptations. By “buffeting” the body we, too, may withstand, endure, overcome.

Our brother then appeals to 1 John 5:16 which deals with “sin not unto death” and “sin unto death.” According to his comments, the former is a sin of one whose heart is right and the latter is a sin of one whose heart is not right. He gives as an example of each: “Ananias and Sapphira lied and died. Abraham lied three times and lived (see Acts 5:1-10; Gen. 12:13; 20:5; 26:7).” Our brother’s count on Abraham is in error – Abraham lied twice – the later reference involves Isaac. His use of 1 John 5:15 is very much in error and is completely void of any textual or contextual exegesis. His position will not bear up under such study.

God will not give “life” (forgiveness) to a brother guilty of “sin unto death” when we pray for such, because such would not be “according to his will” (v. 14). He will give “life” (forgiveness) to a brother guilty of “sin not unto death” when we pray for such, because such is “according to his will” (v. 14). The fact that God must give life indicates spiritual death on the sinner’s part. God’s will in this matter is set forth plainly in 1 John 1:9 “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Therefore, “sin unto death” is a sin of which a brother will not repent and confess. All the prayers of all the faithful will not cause God to save either an alien or a saint contrary to His will.

Now look at what brother Diestelkamp has done in the case of Abraham. The lie Abraham told was with forethought, purpose, plan and intentional design to deceive. Heretofore he has affirmed only a limited coverage for sins, namely, inadvertence, ignorance, and weakness. Now, in the case of Abraham, he goes all the way with Calvinism and affirms coverage for a willful, deliberate, intentional sin. I know he denies teaching this elsewhere in what he writes and teaches – “O Consistency, Consistency, thou art a jewel.”

Concerning section 2, I know of no law of pardon for a Christian except the one stated by Mike: “he must repent of his sin, confess it and pray.” However, there is a difference between repenting of and confessing what one is guilty of and in enumerating specifically every instance of that guilt. The latter is not necessarily a part of the former and ought not to be forced upon one as such.

The publican of Luke 18:3, in the light of what is revealed and in the absence of anything to the contrary, was guilty of wholesale apostasy, and the word “sinner” must be understood with that connotation. Even Jesus shows the general attitude toward publicans from a spiritual viewpoint (Matt. 18:17). If one is guilty of wholesale apostasy, that is what he should confess. If, however, he sins while striving to live as a Christian, he should confess only that of which he is guilty. In both instances one confesses the what of his guilt – and only then should it be to the one or ones against whom the sin was committed.

Psalm 19:12 needs more study than space win here permit. Suffice it to say that in view of God’s plan for forgiveness of sins of ignorance in that day (Lev. 4 and 5), David was circumventing God’s ordained plan, if brother Diestelkamp’s position be true.

There is some doubt in my mind that the examples submitted by brother Diestelkamp, under the conditions described by him, constitute sin. However, there are hypothetical situations that are difficult to handle in the tight of revealed truth. No man however, should presume beyond that which is revealed! Cases like the alien who is killed on his way to be baptized must be left in the hands of the Great Judge. It is His prerogative to grant clemency commensurate with justice. Yes, I think too many are “whittling on God’s end of the stick.”

In section 4 brother Diestelkamp again misuses 1 John 2:1. This “advocate” does not act in our behalf unconditionally. The context demands a confession based upon repentance (1 Jn. 1:9), which necessarily involves “ceasing the practice of sin.” Short of this we have no assurance that the “advocate” will act in our behalf.

God does not demand perfect knowledge of truth or perfect living of any man. God’s judgment in many matters will be in relation to our time, opportunity, and ability (Matt. 25:14-30). Hence, these are relative. Everything in which one grows or becomes proficient with time and opportunity are indeed relative. In these matters one’s faithfulness is in proportion to his sense of responsibility and spiritual appreciation. One is not born into the kingdom with a full measure of such. However, some conditions of faith are absolute. One does not become proficient in the kind of music used in worship, the day on which he observes the Lord’s Supper, or in observing the pattern of the church organization and work. Carefully distinguishing between the relative and the absolute will solve many problems posed by some.

I look forward to brother Diestelkamp’s reply and fervently pray that this study may be of spiritual benefit to all.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 12, pp. 368-370, 375
June 20, 1985