Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Across America, many mainline Protestant denominations are becoming alarmed at the loss of membership which is occurring in their respective denominations. Recent statistics have shown that approximately “80 million Americans, roughly 40 percent of the United States population” (J. Russell Hale, Who Are The Unchurched?, p. 2), are “unchurched Americans.” Every major denomination in the United States has suffered numerical losses during the last decade.

The number of people who are attending church in any given week has slipped to 40%. “Four in 10 adults nationwide attended church or synagogue in a typical week in 1979” (George Gallup, “Sunday Worship,” Dayton Journal Herald, 29 December 1979, p. 34). Despite this loss of numbers in attendance, Gallup polls show that “more than eight of every ten persons believe Jesus Christ is divine” (Christianity Today, 21 December 1979, p. 14). However, most people believe that one can be a good Christian or Jew without attending worship services. “Can a person be a good Christian or Jew if he or she doesn’t attend church or synagogue? Seven out of 10 of the churched segment, and eight persons in 10 of the unchurched, answer in the affirmative” (The Unchurched American, p. 9).

Churches Analyze Their Losses

“According to a report prepared by Constant Jacquet, Jr. in 1973 there were eleven Protestant churches which had a membership of one million or more. Eight of the eleven had fewer members in 1973 than they did in 1965. The percentage loss ranged from 30.63 % to 2.35 % . One of the three remaining denominations has shown a slight loss since 1970, thus leaving only two denominations with more than one million members which reported more members in 1973 than in any previous year” (Warren J. Hartman, Membership Trends: A Study of Decline and Growth in the United Methodist Church 1939-1975, p. 48). Here is the specific data:

	1965	1975	Percentage Change
American Baptist	1,538,988	1,603,033	4.2
Assemblies of God	572,123	785,348	37.3
Church of the Nazarene	343,380	441,093	28.4
Episcopal	3,429,153	2,857,513	-16.7
Lutheran Church of America	3,106,844	2,986,078	-3.9
Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod	2,692,889	2,763,545	2.6
Presbyterian Church, U.S.	950,139	878,126	-8.6
Roman Catholic Church	46,246,175	48,881,872	5.7
Seventh Day Adventist	364,666	495,699	35.9
Southern Baptist Convention	10,770,573	12,733,124	18.2
United Church of Christ	2,070,413	1,818,762	-12.1
United Methodist Church	11,082,024	9,975,710	-10.0
United Presbyterian Church U.S.A.	3,034,321	2,657,699	-12.4

These figures are taken from “The Church In The World” by Jackson W. Carroll, Theology Today (35:70-80, April 1978).

A study of these statistics is rather interesting. Across the board, these figures show that fundamental or evangelical groups are growing numerically whereas liberal groups are declining in membership. Consequently, Dean Kelley has written a book entitled Why Conservative Churches Are Growing which basically ties growth to conservative beliefs and decline in membership to liberal beliefs. This thesis, obviously, has not been totally accepted as Jackson W. Carroll’s response (Ibid.) demonstrates. However, self-analysis studies by the different denominations throws more light on the subject.

1. United Methodist Church. Warren J. Hartman published a 60-page study of Membership Trends in the United Methodist Church in 1976. While not stating that the membership loss in the Methodist Church was attributed to members becoming dissatisfied with liberal preaching and leaving the church, I am convinced that this study demonstrates that liberalism is leading to self destruction. Hartman wrote,

Between 1949 and the present there have been a number of radical changes in the larger society, in the religious subculture, and in the church. The causes for change are many and complex. Within the church there have been mood changes, new ideas about the mission of the church, and constant reordering of priorities. The effect of these changes is seen among the agencies of the church in the shifting program emphasis and in the allocation of financial resources (p. 20).

The result has been that the amount spent by the United Methodist church in converting people has dwindled with their increase in emphasis on social justice. Compare these figures to see how emphasis on programs other than evangelism has consumed the resources of the United Methodist Church (p. 22):

Comparing these figures with those of the local church with which I am affiliated, I can hardly imagine that the entire Methodist denomination is only spending 2.8% of its total revenue ($52,434,368) for evangelism; that amounts to $1,510,109.70 per quadrennium or approximately $500,000 per year. The local congregation of which I am a member (which has approximately 190 in attendance each Lord’s day) will spend approximately $45,000 this year in the support of gospel preachers in addition to purchasing $6500 in radio time, literature, tracts, and other evangelistic material. It is small wonder that the United Methodist Church is not growing. It is more concerned with making this world a better place to live than in preparing souls for eternity! (See chart below)

Quadrennium	Contributions To All General Causes	Distributions To:
		Local Church Education	Evangelism	Education and Evangelism	Percent of All Money
1949-52	$1,419,4678	630,383	90,411	720,784	5.8
1953-56	17,724,958	667,673	195,675	863,348	4.87
1957-60	23,316,995	752,648	254,505	1,007,153	4.32
1961-64	30,353,357	967,269	355,441	1,322,710	4.36
1965-68	34,406,518	1,059,309	384,944	1,444,253	4.20
1969-72	45,779,002	1,211,397	463,463	1,674,860	3.66
1973-75	52,434,368	1,205,069	304,309	1,509,378	2.88

2. United Presbyterian Church. The problem of declining membership is discussed in A Summary Report of The Committee on Membership Trends which was approved by the 188th General Assembly (1976). The report stated the seriousness of the problem.

For ten years our church has agonized over the continued loss of members which has occurred after twenty-five years of almost uninterrupted membership growth. The same decline was experienced by most other mainline Protestant denominations beginning in the mid 1960’s but was even more serious in our church than in others – 577,084 (a 17% loss) since 1965 (p. 11).

The study of the United Presbyterian Church discounted theological liberalism as having anything to do with the loss in membership stating, “We cannot conclude that the more conservative the approach or stance in the life of a congregation the more likely it is to grow” (p. 15). However, the relationship between liberalism and lack of motivation in evangelism is too obvious to be discounted. The United Presbyterian Church Committee on Membership Trends reported that “when choosing from a list of 21 possibilities, the recruitment of new members rated among the three most important aspects of church life for only 9% of respondents in growing churches and for 10% in those rapidly declining. Christian witness to the community was affirmed by only 5% to 7%. Only 4% to 6% could affirm evangelism” (p. 20). To furthermore demonstrate the relationship between theological liberalism and lack of evangelism, resulting in declining church membership, consider the following quotation:

Two of the most important convictions in the UPC are the centrality of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and the authority of the Scripture as the Word of God. However, among our respondents, less than 30% perceived the “personal experience of the salvation in Christ” as among the three most important aspects of the faith of their congregation. When the respondents were asked the extent to which they could agree with the statement that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practice, only one-fourth could not. Forty percent of the Presbyterian Panel could not agree with this statement.

“Ministering to the needs of others,” “the sense of purpose, strength, and the security the faith gives,” and “personal guidance in daily decisions” more frequently emerged than did the “personal experience of salvation” as a key aspect of the respondent’s faith. While each of these is an important aspect of the Christian faith and life, we are concerned that many tend to place generalized religious experience and relation ahead of the personal relation to Christ as Savior in one’s daily life.

When rating 21 different aspects of their congregation’s life, only 7% to 8% could say that members’ understanding of the faith was among the three aspects getting the most attention. There is a widespread conviction that it is important for people to share their Christian beliefs with others, but they themselves do so only occasionally.

The above data perhaps throws a different light on the strength of the agreement by our respondents with the statement that “no one has the right to impose his belief on another.” The fairly strong opinion on that may come from a respect of other persons and the desire to be tolerant. It may also be that we aren’t clear about what we believe, and thus feel uncomfortable when talking about our faith (pp. 21-22).

Like the United Methodist Church, the United Presbyterian Church has continued to spend less on missions .

. . . What about our concern for mission in the USA and overseas? It is a fact that despite larger total giving per capita by our decreased membership, we have increasingly allocated a larger proportion of those dollars to the local church program and plant. Much less is now allocated to the national and international mission of the church. More is allocated to non-United Presbyterian mission causes. Slightly more is now allocated to presbytery and synod general mission (p. 18).

Hence, the United Presbyterian Church continues to lose membership. My personal assessment, as confirmed by these quotations, is that preaching the saving gospel of Jesus Christ is not important to those who believe there is no salvation beyond the grave and that, if there were salvation available, one could obtain it without faith in Jesus Christ.

3. The Episcopal Church. A remarkably frank discussion of liberalism and membership loss in the Episcopal Church was written by Wayne B. Williamson, Growth and Decline in the Episcopal Church (1979). The Episcopal Church has been hit extremely hard by membership loss; they have had a loss of 16.7% in membership in the decade from 1965 to 1975. During this same period, extreme theological liberalism has controlled the Episcopal Church. After detailing the entrance of theological liberalism in the Episcopal Church, Williamson wrote, “Many clergy openly denied the Virgin Birth, some denied the historicity of Jesus, and some even the existence of a personal God . . . . By 1967 Bishop James A. Pike could openly deny the Virgin Birth and virtually dare the House of Bishops to take action against him, which they refused to do” (p 17). He lamented, “We have all but said that we hold there is no heresy except in the case of those who would hold that there is such a thing as heresy” (p. 142). The religious tolerance of the Episcopal Church with its “unity-in-diversity” extends to include all forms of religion.

Something of the morass into which comprehensiveness can lead is discerned in a report of recent happenings in two of our major cathedrals. It was widely reported that during “a recent service at the Washington Cathedral a Muslim Azan, A Jewish Baruch, and aspirations from the Hindu Pali Prayer Book issued from the pulpit” (Rutler 1978:4). The other episode took place in the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City. It hosted a Shinto ceremony in the name of ecumenicity. In gratitude for this recognition the Japanese Shintoists gave an altar (Shinto) which the Cathedral received and ensconced within the Cathedral as a gesture of ecumenical solidarity (p. 21).

Obviously, such a group is not going to be concerned with converting Muslims, Jews, and Shintoists. Williamson commented, “The price of comprehensiveness almost inevitably involves compromise” (p. 20).

What can one say of this “comprehensiveness” when he is persuaded that tolerance of error is not a virtue; indeed, such tolerance will eventually sound the deathknell of true religion. The Christian religion is a religion of deep convictions, not of facile compromises (p. 21).

Liberalism is obviously in control of the Episcopal Church.

The result of this liberalism has been that the funds of the church have been expended on nearly everything but evangelism.

For those who hold the activist politico-economic advocacy point of view, growth in numbers is a secondary concern for the church, at best. They have little interest in, or patience with, evangelism that seeks to win men and women to Christ. It is a part of my argument that because the liberal view has gained the ascendancy among Episcopal leaders, over against the more traditional and conservative view of the “salvation of souls,” they have lost touch with their people in the parishes. As a result the church has suffered numerical loss, seen its missionary and evangelizing spirit greatly diminished, and largely lost the semblance of biblical direction (p. 2).

Instead, the church has been diverted into the social gospel to the extent that its mission has been grossly perverted, according to Williamson.

This stems from the religious liberalism which has gotten control of the denomination. Notice his assessment of the liberalism in the church and its influence on the mission of the denomination. In this first citation from Williamson’s book, he is quoting John Stott.

Nothing hinders evangelism more today than the widespread loss of confidence in the truth, relevance, and power of the Gospel. When this ceases to be good news from God, and becomes instead “rumors of God,” we can hardly expect to exhibit much evangelistic enthusiasm (p. 54).

In his own words, he adds,

Probably the greatest impediment to Church Growth for the Episcopal Church is that so few, clergy or laity, really believe that apart from Christ people are eternally lost. Lacking this conviction, the major incentive for membership growth tends to focus around maintaining the institution and its programs (p. 61).

Be this as it may, I still search in vain in our church literature for any compelling reason as to why anyone should become a Christian and a member of the Church (p. 63).

Instead of the Episcopal Church being interested in leading lost souls to the salvation which is available in Christ, the denomination has been involved in every form of social work. It has imbibed the social gospel.

Because of its overarching concern for the world and its problems, the Church’s priorities change frequently. The Vietnam war, industrial unrest, social injustice, racial discrimination, the exploitation of minority peoples, urban decay, multinational corporations, Capitalism’s corrupting consumerism -the list is long and the possibilities for “relevant” crusades are endless. Whereas few serious-minded Christians would contend that the Church should not involve itself in resisting all that dehumanizes people (Williamson seems to want just a little social gospel, mw), many would question the wisdom of transforming the Church into a cluster of social action committees. They would argue from Scripture that the Church has been given a unique task to perform in society, a task which is significantly different from the most enlightened of social action programs. The tragedy is that social concerns have consumed so much energy and money that the Church has been unable to devote much strength to this primary task (pp. 18-19).

The revolutionary social upheaval of the last decade or so has left many churches in such a state of uncertainty as to their proper role that they have tended to lose all sense of direction. Some of them, feeling driven by the charges of the irrelevancy of the Church in the modern world, have opted to let the world set their agenda. In the laudable desire to see a more perfect justice, some congregations have chosen to become neo-Marxist humanist institutions (p. 39).

The Episcopal Church has tended to define evangelism as whatever it happens to be doing at the time . . . . For those who hold such views, the notion of making disciples as a definite goal is somewhat distasteful. Christian mission simply becomes another form of social involvement rather than a deliberate attempt to proclaim the gospel and persuade people to become Christians. In short, churches may choose to emphasize functions other than bringing people to God. They may desire to become exemplary agencies for affecting social reforms – this has been the major emphasis for the Episcopal Church in the last decade or so (55).

Because of this lack of emphasis on evangelism, Williamson was pessimistic about the future of the Episcopal Church. He reported, “A recent report by the Hartford Seminary Foundation and Duke University Divinity School revealed that at our present rate of ordination by the year 2004 there will be `one priest for every lay member”‘ (p. 4). Indeed, “Those who marry the spirit of this age are bound to be widowers in the next!” (p. 132).

Conclusion

The theological liberalism of the mainstream Protestant denomination has certainly gotten them into serious trouble. Their membership rolls are declining. Likely we will see many church mergers during the near future in an attempt to keep the denominations afloat and financially solvent; this is one means of showing church growth on the books.

However, other denominations are experiencing rapid growth. I intend to consider some of the reasons for this in next week’s article.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 26, pp. 419-422
June 26, 1980

By Ben M. Shropshire

A woman told me once that she could not agree with me in what I was teaching because I was too “judgmental,” implying that I had no right to judge anyone. Somehow it did not occur to her that she was judging me and my teaching in her statement. Such is the problem in trying to apply the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 7:1-5. In her view, ,l was violating the teaching of Jesus in this passage, but her own judging was no violation thereof. This, of course, is precisely the thing that Jesus was condemning in this passage.

The word “judge” in the New Testament has two basic and related meanings: (1) “to separate, select, choose, to make a determination” as in Luke 7:43 and Acts 4:19; and (2) “to condemn or find fault with as a result of the selecting” as in John 12:48, 3:17, and James 4:11. These definitions need to be kept in mind in any study of what the Bible says about judging.

It is true that Jesus forbids our judging others in such places as Matthew 7:1-5 and Luke 6:37, and His teaching is amplified in James 4:11, 12 and Rom. 14:13. On the other hand, in other passages we find that we are commanded to do a certain kind and amount of judging, as in John 7:24, Luke 12-57, and I Corinthians 5:12, 13. Obviously, the New Testament is not contradicting itself in these passages; therefore, there must be a kind of judgment on our part that is prohibited and another kind of judgment that is commanded. We must be careful to discern one from the other so as to be void of offense unto the day of Christ (Phil. 1:9-11).

First, let us take a quick look at the passages which require us to make some judgment, even to the extent of finding others wrong and subject to being lost: (1) The civil courts (the “powers that be”) must judge to determine those who are evil doers (that is, those who violate civil law) in order to administer punishment (Rom. 13:1-5); (2) A local congregation must judge its own members in order to determine those who are living ungodly lives or are walking disorderly so that the congregation may withdraw themselves from such (1 Cor. 5:1-13; 1 Thess. 3:6, 14); (3) Individual Christians are to decide between teachers in order to be able to determine the ones who are teaching error and to reject them (Matt. 7:6, 15; 3 Jn. 9-11; Titus 3:10, 11; 1 Jn. 4:1); (4) Christians must also judge the actions of other Christians in order to decide who has been “overtaken in any trespass” in an effort to restore such a one to faithfulness (Gal. 6:1; Matt. 7:5; Jas. 5:19, 20); (5) Gospel preachers must draw the line between truth and error, right and wrong, the saved and the lost, in order to convict men of sin to lead them to obey the gospel (2 Tim. 4:1-5); and (6) False teachers must be identified at times as being such (1 Tim. 6:3-5; 2 Tim. 2:16-18) and this cannot be done without their being judged by someone else. It should be obvious that these tasks, as unpleasant as they may be to us in doing them, cannot be performed without our doing some “judging,” even to the extent of determining that some are in error and subject to being lost.

It is important to note in all of these cases of required judging, though, that the one doing the judging is never allowed to judge another on the basis of his own law, opinions or prejudices. With the exception of judgement by the civil courts, which are ordained of God and which may judge on the basis of the civil laws that are arrived at by human procedures (but a judge may never decide on the basis of his own will, but only on the basis of the civil law which he is sworn to uphold), all of the required kinds of judging is to be done only on the basis of God’s law as it is revealed in the scriptures. Thus, when a judgment (even of condemnation) is rendered on this basis, it is not really the person doing the judging (deciding) who has made the judgment (condemnation), but the judgment has really been pronounced by God. Of course, for this to be true, a correct interpretation and application of the scriptures is essential, but the scriptures themselves presume that such is possible. I recognize that this is the difficulty for most -people today when it comes to judging.

We have been so influenced by subjectivism that most people do not feel they can ever be sure of their own understanding and application of scriptural teaching, and they are equally positive that no one else can know whether they are right either. Hence, if no one can ever be sure of what is right, how can anyone dare to judge anyone else to be wrong? Such uncertainty about truth is to say that God has miserably failed in giving us a revelation of truth in the scriptures which we can understand and apply (compare 2 Timothy 2:15). Who would dare charge God in such a way? The fact that God has charged us with such tasks as the kinds of judging mentioned above is indicative that He has also given us an understandable and applicable law on which to base such judging, and for us to fail in the discharge of these duties is for us to be judged by His law ourselves!

If the above kinds of judging are required of us, what then are the kinds of judging which we are prohibited as Christians from exercising? We will look at these in next week’s article.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 26, p. 418
June 26, 1980

By Carol R. Lumpkin

The above question is thought by some people to be answered in the affirmative. Those who actually believe Campbell was the founder of the church of Christ do not know the truth or else they would not make such charge. Those who contend that Campbell established the church of Christ do so for one of the following reasons: (1) they do not know any better and are ignorant of the truth; or (2) they do so to poke fun at and to reflect upon the Lord’s church in a bad way; or (3) they are afraid to admit that the church of Christ is the church the New Testament authorizes (Matt. 16:18; Acts 2:47).

We read in the gospel according to Matthew (16:18) that the Lord said He was going to build His church. At the time this was spoken the church was yet in the future. We then read where people were being added to the church (Acts 2:47). Earlier in Acts chapter two, the gospel was preached to the Jews on the day of Pentecost. Those Jews who believed in Jesus were instructed to repent of their sins and be baptized (Acts 2:37-38). About 3,000 did obey and were added to the church (Acts 2:41, 47).

We observe that there is no mention of a man by the name of Campbell. The apostles were the ones who stood up with Peter, as Peter preached this first gospel sermon. Campbell was not born until 1786, or some 1753 years after the events of Acts chapter two occurred.

Campbell was born in Northern Ireland in the year 1786. He came to this country on September 29, 1809. Campbell was at one time a member of the Presbyterian and Baptist churches. He found that neither of these churches followed the teachings of Christ, so he withdrew from them. Taking his~New Testament, he read his way to an understanding of truth.

Here are some facts for our consideration. (1) Christ established His church in 33 A.D. (Acts 2); Campbell was not born until 1786 or some 1753 years later. (2) Christ purchased the church with His blood (Acts 20:28); Campbell never died to purchase any church. (3) Paul stated in the year 64 A.D. that the Colossians had been delivered from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of his dear Son (Col. 1:13); this was written several hundred years before Campbell was born.

The church of Christ was established not by Campbell but by the Lord Jesus Christ (Matt. 16:18; Acts 2; Ac. 20:28). Campbell did not introduce a single doctrine or practice for the church of Christ. In fact, every doctrine and practice of the church of Christ dates back to the first century A.D., and is recorded in the New Testament.

Campbell did, along with a number of others, determine to leave man-made churches and turn to the New Testament. This indeed, we commend him for doing. We also urge all people who are concerned about their souls to do the same today.

Those who read this short article must now understand that Mr. Campbell had nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of the church of Christ. There is only one church mentioned in the New Testament and every person is urged to obey the gospel of Christ and be added to that church (Rom. 16:16; Acts 2:47). Churches of men offer no hope beyond the grave, for they all shall be rooted up (Matt. 15:13). Christ is going to deliver up His church to the Father following the day of judgment (Heb. 9:27; Eph. 5:27).

Why be a party in a church in which the Lord has no part? You still have time to become a member of the Lord’s church and secure your salvation in Christ Jesus (Acts 4:12).

Truth Magazine XXIV: 26, p. 417
June 26, 1980

By Connie W. Adams

Because of my acquaintance with the Philippine work, Mike Willis has asked that I respond to the article coauthorized by Ed Harrell and Tommy Poarch which appears elsewhere in this issue of Truth Magazine. Their article grew out of a two month trip around the world during which time they spent two weeks in the Philippines. These are worthy brethren, well known and highly esteemed by us all. With many of the views they expressed, we are in complete accord. However, we take exception to some of their comments and recommendations and feel duty bound to respond.

That there have been unworthy brethren in the Philippines, none could deny. We have some in this country. There has been a weeding out of such men over a period of time and that certainly ought to continue as long as brethren in this country support men there. Some of this has been made possible by men of integrity in that nation who have gathered and presented undeniable evidence for the benefit of churches here in forming a judgment as to their future involvement with such men. The work in the Philippines has been going on since the late 1920’s and has survived premillennialism, the Japanese occupation during World War II, institutionalism and unworthy men. There are still men at work who have been faithful all through the years with or without American support. We are fully convinced that should all American support be stopped immediately, such men would continue to work as they have in the past. While such cessation of support might greatly hinder the fruitful labors of some good men, it would certainly further identify any who work only for the loaves and the fishes.

The Nature and Extent of Their Trip

Brethren Harrell and Poarch spent a total of two weeks in the Philippines and came away with the assessment that “sporadic visits” cannot give us accurate information. Well gentlemen, that places your assessment in doubt, doesn’t it? Faithful brethren have been in touch with the Philippine work for a number of years now. American service men stationed there have had a close-up view for a long time and their stays could not be described as “sporadic.” Additionally, several visits have been made to the islands by members of such churches as that composed of service families on Okinawa who supported preachers there. Since the late 1960’s, there has been much contact with that work. Beginning in 1970 and every year thereafter, teams of American brethren have made trips which have taken them to most of the islands where congregations exist. These include Roy Cogdill, Cecil Willis, J.T. Smith, James P. Needham, Dudley R. Spears, Earl Robertson, Larry Hafley, Leslie and Roy Diestelkamp, Jady Copeland, Frank Butler, Keith Burnett, William Battles, Wallace Little, Arnold Granke, Paul Casebolt, Jim ‘Puterbaugh, Hiram Hutto, Leo Plyler, Ben Shropshire, Bob Buchanon, Harold Trimble and possibly others inadvertently omitted. The writer has also made two such trips and is personally acquainted with all the others who have been. T here has been a wide exchange of information among the various brethren who have gone. I know about 400 native preachers by face. I have personally preached on the islands of Luzon, Mindoro, Tablas, Cebu, Palawan and Mindanao. Over the past ten years, I have corresponded with many of the brethren and have a filing drawer full of such correspondence. I have traveled with them by plane, boat, horse-drawn conveyance, motorcycle, bus, taxi, jeep and by foot. I have stayed up nearly all night with many (after being in services all day and half the night) studying the Bible. I have laughed with them, cried with them, baptized some of them, rebuked some, apologized to some, exhorted and encouraged. I have traveled and worked for days at a time with some of the abler preachers among them. I have seen them under all sorts of situations. I have slept in their houses and eaten their foods. I have made it a point to stay in touch with the other men who have made such visits. Very frankly, I am much more disposed to trust the accumulated information and impressions of these 23 or so brethren who have gone to travel and labor among the churches (some making several trips) for periods ranging from one month to a full year than I am the appraisal of two brethren who spent two weeks, saw very few of the brethren and assessed the matter from that vantage point together with an accumulation of reports from various sources before going.

Brother Harrell did some academic lecturing while there. Neither of them went to Mindoro where there are many congregations and where the Philippine work actually began. They did go to Davao City on Mindanao but they did not visit the two provinces on that island where most of the congregations are found (Cotabato and Zamboanga). T hey did not venture out into the rough mountain areas near Davao City where there are many churches which were largely established and nourished by the late Ruben Notarte. Several American brethren have gone among those churches and they can tell you how “accessible” transportation is into that region. Ask Paul Casebolt, Leslie Diestelkamp or Ben Shropshire. T hey did not go to the remote island of Palawan where there are now many churches. They did not visit the Visayas where there are churches multiplying. How do I know this? I asked them face to face.

They spent some time in Manila, worshiped twice with the Pasay church, flew to Davao City and back and brother Poarch made a trip up to Baguio City where he met with a preacher whom he had been asked to see. While he made a visit to Philippine Bible College and talked with the president, he did not see Andrew Gawe or any of the faithful brethren in that area. They talked with at least two men who have personal axes to grind. It was one of these who reported that the late Romulo Agduma said he thought there might be $1,000,000 a month support going into the Philippines. Not only do I not believe that this figure is anywhere close to reality, I do not even believe that Romula Agduma said any such thing and have good reason to suspect the motive of the one who is said to have reported this to these good brethren. Their estimate of how much American support goes over there ranged from $150,000 to $1,000,000 a month. That is a wide variance and only underscores the incompleteness of their actual knowledge of the situation.

Others Have Warned

All of the brethren who have gone over there in recent years have warned brethren in this country to do as much checking as possible before agreeing to support any preacher there. Reports have been published in this paper as to how much a school teacher is paid, a carpenter, and other lines of employment. We are indebted to these brethren for updating this information to current times. That should prove a useful guideline for brethren in making their decisions. I have had a part in locating support for several preachers in that nation. With few exceptions, these men have worked well. It was my practice always to urge the brethren who supported them to require a regular and frequent report of their work and a full disclosure of total support received. I have consistently advised brethren not to continue support to any man who was unwilling to do that. Others have offered the same advice. It is a fact that some men have collected names and addresses from periodicals which have fallen into their hands and have sent out blanket appeals to many different places. It was consistently my practice (and that of others I could name) not to recommend any man for support who had left denominationalism or liberalism within the last two years prior to considering such support. Others can speak for themselves, but this writer personally resents, no only on his own part, but on behalf of many good American brethren, to say nothing of faithful men in the Philippines, any statements about “buying converts” with promises of support.

Churches Need To Move Toward Self-Support

We agree with what they have said about the importance of developing churches which support their own men and work. There have been some churches in the Philippines which have had a part in supporting native men. On the last visit this writer made to the Philippines, Romula Agduma urged that several sessions be devoted to discussing with a large number of preachers the urgency of teaching brethren to give as prospered and to assume as much of their own preacher support as possible as soon as possible. That was in 1975. At his suggestion, I spoke three evenings and fielded questions from brethren for a long time each night. While we rejoice in the good work done for so long by good men in South Africa, a work which these brethren heartily recommended, it should be said that American brethren have been working there for about 30 years on support from American churches and there are also some native men receiving American support now. Most of the sound churches in the Philippines have been developed within the past twelve to fifteen years and many of them are less than five years old.

Respecting Bible Principles

Whatever sociological presuppositions and personal judgments may be involved as to how best to develop selfsupporting churches, there are certain Bible truths which must not be ignored. (1) It is scriptural for a congregation to send a preacher elsewhere to help another congregation (Acts 11:22-24). (2) It is scriptural for a congregation to send to meet a preacher’s needs while he labors elsewhere (Phil. 4:15-16). (3) It is scriptural for a plurality of churches to provide wages for a preacher to labor elsewhere (2 Cor. 11:8-9): (4) It is scriptural for brethren to uphold the hands of those who preach the gospel on the strength of recommendation from those who know them (consider the closing verses of several of Paul’s letters). Personal opinion about specific cultures and about the best way to encourage self-sustaining churches should not be allowed to over-ride these Bible truths. The nationality or culture of the man being sent, or receiving support does not enter the matter unless it is intruded by the personal opinion of some.

Cure Worse Than The Disease?

While these good brethren have sounded timely warnings about “paternalism” in foreign evangelism, it is difficult for me to see their suggested remedy is any better, and indeed, may be far worse. While there have been, and yet are, dangers in what they have called the “recommending” system, there are also dangers in their suggestion that “a more permanent American presence in the area” should be worked out. My question is a simple one. Why are American workers permanently needed in a country where there are over 600 native preachers? What would be their role? Would they be there to evangelize that country? Native men are already doing that. Many of them are well educated, experienced and, frankly, many of them can preach better than some of us can. Would their role be that of supervisors? Is this not the essence of their suggestions? If so, then that is paternalism gone to seed. Is it not good old American arrogance to even suggest it? Is a work not to be counted worthy or valid unless there are Americans on hand to oversee it?

Further, while all agree that amends should be made in any case where a brother is receiving far too much support, we question the right of any two brethren to fix an absolute amount which covers all men in all cases regardless of family size or place of work, an amount fixed by men who live 10,000 miles from the scene they seek to regulate. Further, they have not taken into account the fact that some men in the Philippines have bought radio time, printed tracts, paid travel costs, bought Bibles, rented meeting places and other expenses from the total amount received which brethren in other countries (some in South Africa, for instance) have counted as a “working fund” and from which such expenses are deducted from what is considered family living expenses. What is sauce for the goose in South Africa ought to be sauce for it in the Philippines. These brethren need to write some more “Reappraisals and Warnings.”

Personal Talks

The writer spoke with brother Harrell about this by telephone soon after receiving this article and was recently in Birmingham where, he met with both brethren Harrell and Poarch and said personally to them most of what is in this article. We are not out of sorts with each other. Both of them, as they stated, have a keen interest in the work of the Lord world-wide and both have been a part in such work in the past with future plans in that director. All of us can learn from their experience and their warnings. Regardless of that, we felt some things needed to be said from a different vantage point. They do not, nor do I, want to see a running battle among brethren over this. Read it, study it, then use it as you think best.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 25, pp. 412-413
June 19, 1980