Truth Magazine

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Under the caption, “May a Church Draw Interest on Its Money?” brother Daniel Holloway takes issue with my reply to this question which appeared in the January 29, 1981 issue of Guardian of Truth.

Banks are now offering their customers a rate of interest on checking accounts. Obviously, a current issue is before us and, before concluding that it is unscriptural for churches to receive interest because it is equivalent to unscriptural schemes to raise money, we need to study several aspects. As brother Holloway’s objections are examined, I appreciate this opportunity to present some considerations, in addition to those which appeared in my answer column of January 29, 1981.

We all agree that the primary and sacred purpose of the church is to preach the gospel. The world is to be evangelized now – the need is urgent, and this work can only be accomplished by each local church doing its work to its fullest capacity, utilizing its resources to its maximum. Churches are not to accumulate money except for emergencies and contingencies which prudence demands that we not ignore. Churches are not to build up nest eggs, but rather they are to use the Lord’s money to the fullest extent to do the Lord’s work. The motive of the church is not to make money on its resources (assets) but to fully expedite its sacred purpose.

Economics is relevant to a correct understanding of our question. A most important concept which is intrinsically involved in this discussion is the time value of money. To illustrate this concept, which would you prefer, a thousand dollars now, or a thousand dollars ten years from now? The answer is obvious. One thousand dollars now is more valuable because your proper use of it increases its value over the ten years. This concept (the time value of money) is the principle involved in Matt. 25:27. The parable of the talents is not a command, example of implication of anything relating to the subject except to teach this principle. The Lord recognized the time value of money. This parable teaches us to be responsible for the maximum use of our abilities. This is the very substance of stewardship. The good steward will make the best use of what is entrusted to him. This question is now in order. Can we encourage the maximum utilization of our collective abilities and, at the same time, ignore the maximum use of our collective funds which are stored up for contingencies and emergencies (1 Cor. 16:1, 2)? We all recognize the church’s sacred mission; therefore, we should do all we can to fully expedite it.

Brother Holloway fails to make a distinction between church promoted schemes to raise money (bazaars, rummage sales, or speculative investments that could lose money) and a church receiving interest on funds it already has in a checking account. There is a vast difference in these money raising schemes and a church accepting an interest rate from the bank. This is what our brother fails to see. This rate of interest is guaranteed by the very entity that prints the paper and establishes that the paper is legal tender. This eliminates speculation – it is guaranteed!

Furthermore, our brother cannot accept the idea of a church receiving interest on money it already has in the checking account, but he approves of a church selling its property (old meeting house, preacher’s house, equipment, etc.) at fair market value, realizing a substantial gain. Is this consistent?

It appears that brother Holloway has a real problem: How to fully utilize the resources of the church to fulfil its divine mission, and at the same time, ignore the time value of the money (Matt. 25:27). While all of us should be concerned about the influence anything wrong may have on a congregation, we should also be very concerned that we do not exert our influence upon a congregation to lose its money. It is not the business of elders to make money for the church but it is their responsibility to not lose money.

I appreciate the fine attitude of brother Holloway and I can somewhat sympathize with him, because at one time, I occupied the same position that he does on the question considered; but, we must not bind where God has not bound. Also we must avoid extremes, like the young preacher I was told about who objected to the church selling the preacher’s house for more than the church paid for it many years ago. Perhaps he wanted to buy it for himself!

(Editor’s Note: I appreciate the fine attitude manifested by these two brethren in this discussion. I would like to add one thought for consideration to this discussion. We recognize that when a man makes an interest free loan to the church that he has made a donation to that church. We also recognize that the money which we deposit in a bank is used by that bank to make loans. When a church deposits several thousand dollars into an account (as is done, for example, when a church is saving to purchase a property), the bank uses that money to make loans. The church is making an interest free loan to that bank if it does not receive interest on that money. Brother Holloway states that he is opposed to a church making money in some way other than the first day of the week contribution and is, therefore, opposed to churches which draw interest on their accounts. I want to know if he is opposed to a church making a donation to a bank, a secular business institution. That is exactly what has occurred when a church has $20,000 – 30,000 on deposit in a non-interest bearing account. It seems to me that brother Holloway’s position would force him to take the position that a church could deposit its money only in a safety deposit box and draw money from that box each time it needed some of the money.)

Guardian of Truth XXV: 18, p. 282
April 30, 1981

By Daniel L. Holloway

In the January 29, 1981 issue of Guardian of Truth, brother Hoyt Houchen dealt with the following question: “Is it right for a church to loan a bank money and draw interest on it?” Generally, I consider his answers to be quite sound from a scriptural standpoint. Also, I have been impressed with the clarity and wisdom with which he writes. However, I do not believe that he answered correctly when he said that “it is right to receive a small payment of interest.” I am writing in response to his answer inasmuch as I am concerned about the influence it may have on congregations. While I am limited in understanding matters of economics and banking, I do trust that my reasoning will be sound and in accord with God’s word. Should anyone show me wherein I have misinterpreted the scriptures on this matter, I will be glad to endorse brother Houchen’s answer.

In his first paragraph, brother Houchen says that the church is not to “seek out business enterprises for the purpose of investing and realizing a financial profit.” He continues, “On the other hand, a church may sell its own property and receive a price that is commensurate with the market price of that property . . . .” He concludes, “There is a difference in such transactions and the church planning and devising schemes whereby it can make money.” With this, I am in complete agreement. However, he then says that interest does not seem to be in the latter category. The only difference which I can see is one of extent or rate of return – normally, a business enterprise would mean more money than would interest. After all, what is the reason for loaning money to a bank if not to make money?

The first argument which brother Houchen sets forth to support his conclusion is that interest rates do not begin to equal the rate of inflation and that, as faithful stewards, we cannot sit by and allow the Lord’s money to lose in value. This implies only that churches may draw interest to maintain the value of the Lord’s money. It appears to me that economic conditions have nothing to do actually with whether or not a church may draw interest on its money. Let us keep in mind that the Lord’s American money continues to be worth just as much as anyone else’s American money. And what if the economy was to deflate? Then the Lord’s money would be worth more. Surely, no one believes that we should dispose of some of it to keep its value from changing. We have already noted that it is permissible to sell church property at market price and receive a profit. Are we to say that it is all right for the value of the Lord’s money to increase but wrong for it to decrease?

Brother Houchen refers to the slothful servant in Matthew 25 who was told by his lord that he could have put his money to the bankers that it might have drawn interest. Several points can be made here. First, the text does not say that the lord’s money had decreased in value due to inflation. As far as we can tell, its value had remained the same. Actually, the lord was concerned with making money. Furthermore, if the parable authorizes churches receiving interest on their money, it also authorizes their involvement in business enterprises. Notice, the lord was pleased with the two who doubled his money by investing it in trade (Matt. 25:16-23). The lesson of the parable is that we should faithfully serve God according to our ability. Certainly, this includes using the Lord’s money wisely in His work, but it says nothing about the way in which the Lord’s money is to be accumulated. Again I say, economic conditions have nothing to do with whether or not a church may draw interest on its money.

Brother Houchen then reminds us that banks make use of money deposited in them by loaning it out. Thus, interest amounts to a “small payment” for the use of one’s money. His conclusion is that if churches may deposit money in a bank, they are likewise authorized to receive interest. As we consider this, let us look to the scriptures to see what they do authorize. We recognize that God has given us a means for acquiring money for carrying out the Lords’ work. That means is the free-will offering of the saints (1 Cor. 16:1, 2; 2 Cor. 9:7; Acts 4:34-37). Inasmuch as the collection is authorized, it necessarily follows that there is authority for keeping it somewhere. When a church deposits money in a bank merely to have it in a safe place, its actions are authorized. So long as the bank is conducting legitimate business, it seems that the use which they make of the church’s money is of no consequence to the church. However, if a church loans its money so as to receive interest, it is doing more than putting its money in a safe place. Though operating on a smaller scale, it is seeking to make money as are churches which invest in business enterprises.

I ask of brethren that they carefully consider this question in light of God’s word that they might follow the right course.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 18, p. 281
April 30, 1981

By Johnny Stringer

John’s Affirmation

When John the Baptist was baptizing people in the Jordan River, he affirmed that Jesus, being far greater than he, would administer two baptisms which he could not administer. Whereas John baptized in water, Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Matt. 3:11). The baptism of the Holy Spirit is of great interest to religious people, and there are those today who are convinced that they have received this baptism. Hence, it is important that we examine the scriptural teaching on this subject.

Some believe that the fire which John mentioned (Matt. 3:11) is connected with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is not so, for John was in the midst of a discussion of judgment in which fire was the means of punishment. He was specifically addressing Pharisees and Sadducees, urging these wicked people to produce good fruit (vv. 7-9). In verse 10, he warned of the punishment they would receive if they failed to bring forth good fruit, affirming that a tree that does not produce good fruit is cut down and cast into fire. Having said that, he spoke of Jesus’ ability to baptize with fire (v. 11). Then, in verse 12, he pictured Jesus as one who would separate the wheat from the chaff, and burn the chaff with unquenchable fire. This was a picture of judgment. It is obvious, therefore, that the fire discussed in this context is the fire of punishment. The fire of verse 11 is the same as the fire of verses 10 and 12. In verses 10-12, John spoke of fire three times. The first and last time obviously refer to the fire of punishment; it is to ignore the context to deny that the same is true of the fire in verse 11. It is a horrible thought to be baptized (immersed) in fire. John was warning the Pharisees and Sadducees that Jesus would indeed do this to those who did not bring forth good fruit.

John also mentioned that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit. To be immersed with the Spirit would be to receive abundant and overwhelming spiritual influences. John was indefinite as to whom Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit. Obviously, not all in his audience would be, for some would be immersed with fire because of their failure to bring forth good fruit. John’s audience was mixed. Some would receive the baptism of fire; others would receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. John’s purpose waste not to identify specifically who would receive each baptism; rather, his purpose was to stress that Jesus would administer two baptisms which he himself could not administer.

Promised and Given to Apostles

To learn specifically who would receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit, we must look to Acts 1 and 2. Acts 1:1-8 deals with what Jesus told His apostles after His resurrection, before He ascended into Heaven. It is made clear in the first four verses that Jesus was talking to His apostles. Speaking to the apostles, Jesus told them that they would soon be baptized with the Holy Spirit, and that they were to wait in Jerusalem for the fulfilment of that promise (vv. 4-5, 8). It is significant that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was never promised to any specific persons other than the apostles. The remaining part of chapter 1 discusses the ascension of Jesus and the activities of the apostles in Jerusalem as they waited for the baptism of the Holy Spirit which had been promised them.

In chapter 2, we read that they received that for which they had been waiting – the baptism of the Holy Spirit. On the day of Pentecost (a Jewish holy day) they were all filled with the Holy Spirit. The Spirit’s coming resulted in a sound like a mighty wind, the appearance of cloven tongues like fire, and the ability to speak in tongues. Verses 5-I1 make it quite clear that the word “tongues” in this passages means “languages.” The apostles were miraculously enabled to speak in foreign languages which they would have been unable to speak without the Spirit’s aid. Sometimes we use the word “tongue” to mean “language.” For example, we might say that Spanish is someone’s native tongue.

It was only the apostles who received the baptism of the Holy Spirit on that day. Since there were 120 disciples together in Jerusalem (Acts 1:15), some maintain that all 120 received the baptism of the Spirit on Pentecost. This is false. In the first place, Jesus clearly did not promise it to all 120, but to the apostles only (Acts 1:1-8). In the second place, when Acts 2:1-4 says that they were all with one accord in one place and were all filled with the Holy Spirit, the ones referred to as “they” are the apostles. This is seen by reading the last verse of chapter 1. Note how the passage reads, beginning with the last verse of chapter 1: “And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place . . . . And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost” (Acts 1:26-2:4). In the third place, the apostles are the ones mentioned in the discussion regarding the things that took place on Pentecost. Verse 14 says that Peter stood up with the eleven. Verse 37 says that the people addressed their question to the apostles. If all 120 disciples received the same thing the apostles did, why did the people address their question to the apostles only? In the fourth place, while it is plain that the apostles received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, those who claim that all 120 received it cannot give one scintilla of evidence that they did. Actually, it is not my obligation to prove that the 120 did not receive it; it is their obligation to prove that the 120 did receive it. Until they do so, I cannot accept their groundless assertion.

There are those who believe that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is for all Christians. Where is the passage that says so? They cannot produce it. We read of the promise being made to the apostles and we read of the apostles receiving the baptism of the Spirit, but there is no scriptural promise that all Christians would receive it. Those who claim to receive it today should note that the baptism of the Holy Spirit resulted in certain effects which could be seen and heard by observers (Acts 2:33). If these effects are not seen and heard when they claim to receive the baptism of the Spirit, we are compelled to deny that they have received it. The effects on Pentecost included a sound like a mighty wind, the appearance of tongues like fire, and the ability to speak in foreign languages. These effects are not seen and heard today. Nonsensical jabbering is heard, but that is not a 42nd cousin to the tongue speaking of Acts 2. Experts in language who have tested modern day “tongue-speakers” confirm that they speak no language whatever.

Finally, it should be noted that baptism of the Holy Spirit is not the baptism which saves and is involved in conversion. Whereas Christ administered baptism of the Holy Spirit, the baptism taught in the Great Commission as being necessary for salvation is administered by men, not by Christ (Matt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:16). Furthermore, whereas the baptism of the Holy Spirit was a promise simply to be received and enjoyed (Acts 1:4), the baptism that saves is a thing which we are commanded to do (Acts 2:38). Also, a study of Acts 8:35-39 clearly reveals that the baptism involved in conversion is water baptism. In enumerating the various things which Christians have in common, Paul said there was one baptism (Eph. 4:4-6). There is only one baptism which we all have in common; that is not Holy Spirit baptism, but water baptism.

Although Christians we read about in the New Testament generally did not receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit, many did receive the Spirit so as to have supernatural powers. Our next article will discuss these.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 18, pp. 279-280
April 30, 1981

By W. C. Hammontree

(Editor’s Note: W. C. Hammontree reviews a speech entitled “Concern About Unconcern, “presented by James R. Cope, President of Florida College, stressing the need for guidance and discipline to begin in the home.)

In an unscheduled speech during the 1981 Lecture Programs held on the campus of Florida College, January 26-29, President Cope responded strongly and emphatically to a number of problems, attitudes and rumblings that plague both the College and the parents. The audience of over one thousand visitors interrupted his remarks with applause on several occasions as he presented numerous thought-provoking, and often challenging, comments regarding the conditions that prevail in the church, the home and colleges today. Because of the changes taking place in the thinking of the students who are attending, and more importantly, in that of the parents who are sending, the. College often finds itself under attack. President Cope said:

We need not expect that the foundations of Florida College will be exempt from the beating rains, stormy winds, and rising floods of years to come. Just as this school has known its “blood, sweat and tears” periods, so it needs be that to greater or lesser degrees the similar testing times will come. If the foundation stones laid 35 years ago are kept in place none need fear that this institution will not be standing a hundred years from now. We need to remember, however, that this school is run by men . . . poor, fallible though sincere, well intentioned sons of Adam. Furthermore, that these men are the products of a variable, changing, and often fickle society, affected by changing mores and value concepts which, even among religious leaders, are ever in a constant state of flux, characterized by varying degrees of liberal and conservative thought.

I regret to say that there have been numerous schools begun at just such fundamental and conservative foundations, as has this one, which have long since left the faith of their founding fathers. College halls which once vibrated and resounded respect for God, His word, and His way, have long since echoed the destructive echoes of worldly, even atheistic, owls and bats.

President Cope spoke of the apostasy that had taken place in the church and pointed out that when this happened, faithful brethren rose to form new and faithful congregations. Just as this happened in the church, he said:

If and when the Florida College you and I have known, loved, and preserved, so depart from its original moorings that it is unworthy of patronage and support, that same day faithful brethren should start another institution to serve the peculiar moral and educational needs of Christian parents and children who at that time believe in the ideals which gave birth to this one.

If I told you that I am not concerned about the future of Florida College, I would speak a falsehood. But hear this, my brethren: I am much more concerned about what is happening to parents who send them, and to the young people who come here, than I am about the stability and perpetuity of this school which exists to serve the alleged needs of both Christian parents and their children.

Many who are associated with Florida College have, for the last several years, heard parents and college supporters express concern that occasionally some students are reported to be doing things while at Florida College that are improper. President Cope expressed his deep concern that such things can, and do happen, but warned that the attitudes of parents and others often foster such problems, and responded with:

This school has lived 35 years because its patrons have believed this controlled environment, based upon biblical truth and enforceable moral regulations, is worth the price they must pay to have it for their children. All this time, most of these parents have had enough confidence in the administrators and teachers here to back them regardless of the restrictions and punishment of their own children when they have been severely disciplined …. 1 confess to you that within the last ten to fifteen years I see a definite reassessment of moral values and attitudes which were not spawned here, but were brought to this campus …. My brethren, God’s people have always lived in the midst of the worldly ways of worldly thinking and godless people. Christians are said to be “in” but “not of” this world. Nevertheless, when Christian parents tolerate in their children immoral practices generally characteristic of the non-Christian world, there is no way for such children suddenly to become lily-white simply because they are exposed to the controlled environment of this campus.

The audience responded with nods of approval and applause as President Cope put the blame and responsibility uncompromisingly upon that which he believes has created these conditions. He said:

I bring no wholesale indictment against any parent or child in particular. Yet, in both homes and churches I visit away from the campus, more and more I see a lessening of respect for the hoary head, less reverence where worship is taking place, and more scoffing at regulations imposed by both public and private school officials. I observe an increasingly sloven, “don’t care” attitude toward neat, clean dress habits and the type clothing worn in public. I observe scanty, sexually suggestive, and often shameless attire worn by both male and female, plus a disgustingly increasing fondling of bodies of the opposite sex, often in the presence of the youth’s own parents! I see a “don’t care” attitude toward what older and wiser heads suggest as proper behavior and all this coupled with a “nobody’s going to tell me what I am going to think, say or do” disposition. These are some of the things I continue to observe in families of men usually thought of, in many churches, as the leaders and feeders of the flock of God.

I suggest to you, my brethren, that all these conditions did not happen overnight. I further suggest that these attitudes have not been born on the campus of this and similar schools. They have developed elsewhere, yet somehow the most ardent boosters often expect faculty and administration to wash all these soiled and torn linens without rubbing somebody’s feathers the wrong way.

Just as these problems are often brought to, and do occur on, the campus of Florida College, President Cope emphasized that when it becomes known, action is taken to stop it. He referred to some who thought that things had taken place on the compus and believed that the College did nothing about it, by saying that too often those who know of such things . . .

. . . instead of coming to the official; who can do something about it, or going through student government channels designed for the correction of such matters, that they just talk to one another, stew in their own juice, often upset their parents by their reports, and, instead of helping the situation by reporting irregularities, allow the situtation to degenerate. The same thing is true off campus. Even our patrons and supporters sometimes talk to their neighbors, friends, and brethren about things happening thousands of miles from where they live but somehow never get around to writing a letter or making a telephone call to personnel in the college who can do something about a situation which may, admittedly, be bad. Even though I am head of the school and even though we have people who are giving their lives in an effort to help the sons and daughters of other Christians across this land, all of us frequently learn things away from campus that we do not learn on campus.

In a comparison of this college’s problems to other experiences in everyday life, he said:

I doubt if there is any parent who has grown children who has not also been the last to learn some things about his own children. Millions of marriages end in divorce every year because one companion knew nothing of the activities of the other till it was too late.

Perhaps most of us, as parents, would feel deeply hurt if we should learn that our children had been guilty of some serious infraction while away at school. It may even be somewhat natural to want to put the blame on others. It is obvious that serious soul searching and deep reflections were taking place as silence fell over the audience while President Cope stated forcefully:

Florida College is not a reformatory. Parents who have no realistic control of their teenagers while they are at home should not be shocked when these same children get into trouble here. It is even worse, and ultimately detrimental to the child and destructive of the home, when parents sympathize with and defend their children who disregard school regulations. It is not uncommon for us to learn that young people who get caught in their use of narcotics or alcohol here have been getting by with the same activities while in high school and living at home all the while the fathers and mothers never dreamed that their dear darlings were wild degenerates when ouside their parents’ immediate presence . . . . Increasingly, this type student comes to this type school only to learn after arrival that we mean what we say about our regulations. He is soon in trouble, is often suspended, and then it is known that in some cases both the child and his parents tend to carry a chip on their shoulders, become openly critical of school policies, and sometimes become hard, if not bitter, critics. Some parents don’t want their sons and daughters enrolled in the “do-your-own-thing” tax supported college, but these same parents sometimes become critical of this school’s officials for demanding respect for the very rules which distinguish Florida College from univerisites with such tolerant environments.

Obviously, such conditions and attitudes do exist and almost every parent and supporter of the College has heard something at some time that prompted deep concern. It seems that President Cope not only unveiled the problem, but struck at its heart when he said of parents’ discipline and training of their own children:

They cannot wait till they (the children) are ready for junior high, senior high school, or college, to start discipline. These same parents must learn that they must begin by loving and respecting each other as husbands and wives. We spend fortunes, and the first 20 years of our lives, learning to make a living, but precious little time learning to make a life together with the opposite sex. We spend years preparing for livelihood, occupations and professions and little or no time preparing our minds or those of our children, for love and tenderness, the patience and politeness, the thoughtfulness and unselfishness, the common sense and common decency, the mutual respect and the mutual responsibilities of marriage. Shall we never learn and shall we never teach our children that happiness is not discovered in sex alone? Shall husband and wife never learn that happiness is a state of mind created by two persons committed to God and to each other in the completing of each other’s whole being and personality?

Florida College would be derelict in its mission if it failed to support the home and hold before its students the sanctity of marriage and family life.

The time is now and the place is here for you and me to resolve anew to give ourselves, in the time we have left? to the building of faith and faithfulness into our own hearts and lives as parents and teachers. With an eye upon eternity, a heart prompting to action, a hand guiding the steps of those committed to our trust, by God’s grace and as His people cannot fail.

In his conclusion, he stressed the College’s role, and while pointing out its place in the moral development of each student, he made certain none could or would, identify the College as the church. He said:

Florida College is not the church of Jesus Christ, locally or generally. As I said earlier, it is not a moral reformatory to repair parental failures. It is not a missionary society to evangelize the world as an agent either of individuals or churches. It is designed, and continues, purely as a private educational entity… a human service institution. It sells human improvement services without financial profit to any stockholders, though it is dependent upon others than the parents and the pupils it serves. Though the graduate or non-graduate . . . the finished product . . . may not always have the finesse that a parent, or even the faculty itself, may desire, it should always be remembered that the raw material enrolled in September has much to do with the finished or unfinished product which leaves this campus at the end of a semester, a full term, or with a diploma two years later.

The thing that has amazed me is not the number which we have failed to improve, but the great number that Christians working here daily and prayerfully have succeeded in salvaging for useful citizenry, for both general society and the kingdom of God. Those who shall continue to operate this school need the constructive suggestions of faithful friends and they must have it to preserve what has thus far been wrought.

While the friends of Florida College will all view the approaching date of James R. Cope’s retirement with sadness, it is at least reassuring to know that through the years he has assembled within Florida College dedicated administrators, teachers, and general employees who uphold the same principles as he has espoused, and, who have the same love for truth and the desire to see Florida College strong, as does he.

Those who know the Board of Directors of Florida College, know that they are men who will not compromise on these principles. They are men who will see that no departure can suddenly overtake this institution and that, for the foreseeable future, we can safely continue to entrust the education of our children to this College.

President Cope has placed a responsibility upon each of us to help maintain the strength and purity of Florida College. Let’s all do our part! Be a helper, not a hinderer. We need Florida College for our children, and our children’s children through generations to come. Will it be there when you need it? Yes, it will be if we all work together today.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 18, pp. 277-279
April 30, 1981