Truth Magazine

By Wallace H. Little

One of the perennial “delicate” subjects among brethren is the support of preachers. Over the years, I have heard some rather interesting “explanations” of support. They have ranged from the idea that a preacher ought to provide his own support by working (this one, obviously, considers that preaching is not work, a contention hardly likely to go uncontested) to the extreme that all a preacher does is “preach two sermons and teach two Bible classes a week,” contending thus that supporting him is a waste of the Lord’s money. This also might be subject to some dispute. Interspersed between these is the growing recognition that a preacher does have a right to be supported in his work in preaching the gospel (1 Cor. 9:1-23) at a level to permit him to provide for his family responsibility (1 Tim. 5:8). There still needs more recognition of the fact that his check is gross pay, while that of most brethren working in secular jobs is net. That is, theirs has already had taken out of it such things as social security; income tax, several varieties of insurance and, usually, some kind of a retirement plan. The preacher must subtract this from his pay check before any fair comparison can be made. Also, he has some added expenses inherent in his work, including increases in telephone and automobile expenses, cost of books and a few other things. I do not want to dwell on these, however, and only mention them in passing. I want to consider at greater length several other points needing understanding by brethren.

First, in my experience, there are too many saints who consider the preacher to be the paid employee of the church, that the relationship is one of employer and employee. This is not according to the New Testament. Paul makes it plain that support is a fellowshipping, a sharing of the supporting brethren in the work that the preacher is doing in spreading the gospel (see Phil. 1:5; 4:15, other texts). There are some consequences of such an attitude that must be realized, then corrected among brethren. First and foremost is that if a church can pay a preacher to preach, he thus has a price, and for a higher one, he can be paid not to preach something! This, usually, being something the brethren do not want to hear (see 2 Tim. 4:2-4). This hardly comports with Paul’s instructions in that text. On a secondary basis, I have yet to find a church that has enough money to pay me “for preaching.” If it is only a job, and nothing more, I can enjoy my “work” in another “job” a great deal more, without the heartache and personal agonizing that goes into preaching. I have met few experienced preachers who do not agree with me in this. Another serious consequence in this “employer-employee” thinking is since he is an employee, he can be used by others in the church to do their work, or do the work which can be much easier done by them, to leave him free to study and teach, which are his primary functions. Thus, preachers are pushed into the position of doing the “churchin.” Brethren, that ought not to be. A third consequence of such thinking is that our “employee,” the preacher can, since “he has more time than anyone else in the congregation,” get out and do more personal work.

It would be difficult to find a notion more foolish than that, and one more dangerous. Even holding it allows the holder to sit back relaxed, thinking with self-satisfaction, that “we’re doing our work, we’re taking care of our responsibilities.” Hopefully, those so believing will learn better before judgment. Even from a practical standpoint, however, this is nonsense. In the first place, the preacher who works, does not have “more time than other brethren”; he will have far less than most. Secondly, in the local community, he is a relative stranger and classed as a migrant. It is considered his “job” to knock on doors and do personal work, thus not many of those he contacts will give him serious consideration. Next, he has far fewer local contacts than the newest saint who has lived there for any period of time. Again, my own experience teaches me that there is not a member of the church who does not have (or would not, if he would work at it the way he wants the preacher to do) more opportunities to teach the aliens than the preacher. Any church that has a mind to work can grow; the plan is simplicity itself – it is outlined in full in Acts 8:4. Read it, and see how much depends on the preacher doing the church’s personal work. What is said there is: “each one win one.” Any takers? Of course the preacher is to do personal work – his, not the church’s!

Another situation needing some comment: the (bad) habit of some brethren in failing to consider the preacher’s needs when he moves with them. Since he is a stranger to the area, his ideas of the cost of living are apt to be somewhat inaccurate, no matter how closely he manages his income. Likely, not wanting to impose on brethren, he will ask only what he feels he needs to provide for his responsibility, allowing no margin for unforseen expenses. But what if he under-guesses (that does happen, you know)? Some folks simply tell him, in effect, “Sorry about that; we can’t (they mean, won’t’) consider a raise until you have been here for a year.” Now that is sensible! Right? Preachers do not have unions to fight for what is fair; they must depend upon the good-will of brethren to do what is right for them. I am not overstating the case when I say this does not always happen.

On more than one occasion, I have heard words such as, “May the Lord keep you humble; we’ll keep you poor” in reference to the attitude of too many brethren. One preacher was so sensitive to the criticism of brethren concerning his support that he never wore new clothing until he had it hang in his closet for a week or so. I asked him what this was for. His response: “So when brethren remark, `Oh, that’s a new coat you have, isn’t it?’ I can say, `No, I’ve had it for some time now.”‘ Silly? Depends on how much you have had others leaning on you. One preacher-friend said it this way: “The world will take care of you, but your brethren will let you starve to death.” He spoke from personal experience, and might be excused if he did exaggerate a little for emphasis. His case is not the only one I know of. Now brethren get into this sort of thinking probably for one of two reasons. Either they just do not know what is happening and so do not know their preacher’s needs. If this is true, a little investigation would be in order. The other possibility is just plain covetousness. I would pray my brethren would not be guilty of this, passing it by under the guise of stewardship. Yet I fear some are so.

One more situation: the tendency of preachers to move every two or three years to better their economic situation, and corollary to that, the tendency of congregations to want the preacher to move every two or three years. What a gross waste of the Lord’s money, in many cases! I have known more than one man to move because his financial situation was so bad he could not continue as he was, and the brethren flatly refused to make any adjustment. On the other hand, they were more than willing to spend hundreds of dollars trying others out and, when a selection had been made, spend several thousand to move him there. Try dividing the total cost of this activity out on a monthly basis to get some idea how much better off the congregation would have been financially, if a sizable raise had been offered the previous preacher.

The attitude on the part of brethren concerning what to offer a new man is in need of some overhauling, too. I once sat open-mouthed in wonder in a business meeting where it was proposed and passed (over my objection) that the new man be offered between two limits set at the meeting, with the urging of the brethren to “keep it as low as possible.” Not a word was said about the mar’s need. Needless to say, when the prospective preacher learned of this attitude, he did not move. Some in that congregation are probably still wondering why he refused. (At that time, I was not preaching, so I had no personal position to defend.)

Brethren, preachers are no different than you. They get hungry, need clothing, must be treated by doctors when they get ill, require a roof over their heads, grow old and need some kind of retirement, have a wife and kids whose needs cost money, and so on. They are not “outsiders”; they are members of the body of Christ with you, and associated with you in the work in that place, with you fellowshipping them in this. Treat them accordingly. No preacher ought to try and make the gospel a way of gain (1 Tim. 6:5) and honest ones will not do so. But they do need to be supported at a level which satisifies their needs.

Brethren, think on these things.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 46, pp. 742-743
November 22, 1979

By William C. Sexton

Recently I have corresponded with some brethren who contend that a teacher can scripturally be called “false” only if the heart is insincere. The false teacher is only the man who is knowingly and willingly distorting the message!

These brethren are using three sources of information to support their case, and I affirm that they are misusing all three:

1. First, they are claiming that the Greek word pseudodidaskalos is limited to one with an impure motive. Such is not true, however, and we need to see that such is not true, according to the authorities on the Greek word meaning.

Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (pp. 676, 144), says of pseudos (false): “a lie; conscious and intentional falsehood: . . . in a broad sense, whatever is not what it professed to be.” On page 144, this authority defines the word didaskalos (teacher): his seventh definition reads, “of false teachers among Christians: 2 Tim. 4:3.” These brethren quote only the first part of Thayer, because it agrees with their claim, but to limit the use to that is to fail. It includes that to be sure, but by no means is limited to that usage as they claim.

Arndt and Gingrich, in their monumental work, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (p. 899), said of the word pseudodidaskalos, false teacher, “one who teaches falsehoods.”

Barclay M. Newman, Jr. in A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (p. 200), says of the word pseudodidaskalos, “false teachers, one who teaches what is not true.”

James Strong in Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Complete and Unabridged (p. 78), says, under number 5572 of the word pseudodidaskalous: a spurious teacher, i.e. propagator of erroneous Chr. doctrine: – false teacher.”

The Analytical Greek Lexicon by Harper (p. 441) said of the word pseudodidaskalos – “a false teacher, one who inculcates false doctrine. N.T.”

It is clear to the unbiased mind, I believe, that these authorities of the Greek word translated “false teacher” understand the meaning to be describing the person who is teaching something claiming it to be of God when in fact it is not! Consequently when any of us teaches things, claiming that such is from God and it is not, then we re “false teachers.”

2. Secondly, these brethren are saying that the English word “false” is limited to one who is knowingly and willingly telling something that they know is not according to the facts. Such is not true. Webster says that the basic idea is “not accurate; in error; incorrect; wrong; mistaken: as a false argument” (Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, College Edition, p. 524).

As with the Greek, in English to claim that the word is limited to a person who has an evil “motive” is to miss the mark – applying arbitrarily the meaning one wants to a word and dismissing the other legitimate meanings. Such is harmful, and we need to recognize the fault, point to it, and be sure that we are not taken in by it.

3. The New Testament passage, 2 Pet. 2:1 ff, is claimed by these brethren to limit the description of “false teachers” to people with evil motives, consciously trying to lead people away from what they know is the inspired word of God. Read the passage, beloved, to see if such is true. I affirm that such is not the case. To limit the meaning to such is like limiting the “false teacher” to “covetousness” because I such is used in the passage. However, not every false teacher has to be covetous; neither does a “false teacher” have to have an evil motive, although no doubt some “false teachers” do have evil motives. The motive, however, is not the criterion; rather it is the nature of the message and its claims!

The passage is a warning that “false teachers” – people teaching something other than the message delivered by the “holy men” speaking as they were “moved by the Holy Ghost”, 1:20-21 – would come and that we need to know that they can and will do us harm! We must be aware of the fact that they will be around and that the result of following them is destruction! We must have something more, beloved, than the ability to read their heart in order to identify them.

Question: If a teacher is “false” only when his/her heart is insincere, how can I detect a “false teacher”? What is required for me to detect one? Read his/her heart? Is that an impossible test? Is that really the aim? If that is the real test, how many “false teachers” are we going to identify? Friends, I pray that you will think on these things and respond to the God of Heaven’s message.

Food for thought: perhaps some of the most effective “false teachers” are the ones who are deceived themselves! Was Paul a “false teacher” when he “thought” that he “ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth” (Acts 26:9-10)? When one is led by a “blind” leader – one having a good motive but out of the way – is he safe (Mt. 15:14)? Is there a passage that says one is safe if his motive is pure (cf. Mt. 7:21-23)?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 46, p. 741
November 22, 1979

By Mike Willis

A lot of people have a very shallow concept of what it means to become a Christian. To some people, being a Christian means that you are expected to be at church on Sunday. With others, who seemingly have a more dedicated spirit, Christianity is a time-clock religion of being at church at 10 o’clock for Bible Study, l I o’clock for worship, 6 o’clock for evening worship, and 7:30 on Wednesday evening. But being a Christian is more than just attending worship services, more than giving of your means, and more than just keeping a pure tongue, although all these are essential for the person to live pleasing to God. Being a Christian also means leading someone else to Christ.

Solomon wrote in Proverbs 11:30, “The fruit of the righteous is the tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise.” Even then, the importance of winning souls was understood. I would like us to look at this proverb in light of New Testament Christianity.

When we think about the word “soul,” we understand that it is used in many different ways. Sometimes it is used just to refer to an individual (Ex. 12:4; Acts 2:41; Acts 7:14). At other times, however, it refers to that immortal part of man (Matt. 10:28; Jas. 2:26; Psa. 19:7; Jn. 3:5, 6). On the occasions when it is referrring to that immortal part of man, it is referring to that part of man that is created in the image of God that has the capacity for enjoying eternal bliss in Heaven with God or eternal punishment in Hell. The soul of man is what differentiates him from any other animal of God’s creation. The wise man said, “He that winneth souls is wise.” But we ask, “Why is it wise to win souls?” In response to that, let us notice a number of reasons why it is wise to win souls.

1. Because of the worth of man. Unlike modern evolutionists, Jesus realized that man was worth more than a sheep (Matt. 12:9-12). To an evolutionist, one animal is no different from any other animal except in the advancement on the scale of evolution. But man is different from any other animal because he is made in the image of God. The eighth Psalm praises this marvelous creation that God has made. In Psalm 8, David wrote,

What is man that thou are mindful of him? and the son of man that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet . . . .

Man’s preciousness does not consist in the monetary worth of the body of man. Actually, man’s body is worth very little; man is valuable because he has a soul that is created in the image of God.

Jesus recognized the value of a soul when He said, “For whosoever will save,his life shall lose it: and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Matt. 16:25, 26). Jesus recognized that man’s soul was more precious than the material universe, more precious than anything that there was to be had on this earth.

The soul of man is precious because of the divinity of its origin. In Ecclesiastes 12:7, we read that at death the soul goes back to God who gave it. It is God who formeth the spirit of man within him (Zech. 12:1). Indeed we are the off-spring of God (Acts 17:28). Hence, one can see the need for winning souls when he considers the importance and the worth of the human soul.

2. Because of the immortality of the soul. Unlike the body which shall die, the soul shall live forever. Jesus taught us that the death of the body does not mean the cessation of existence. He argued from what the scriptures taught, as is recorded in Luke 20:37, 38, that man lives after his body dies. In this passage, Jesus said,

Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calletlk the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For is is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.

This passage shows us, conclusively, that when a man dies his soul does not cease to exist. Though Jesus said that God is (in the present tense) the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, He recognized that God was not the God of the dead but of the living. Hence, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were still living though their bodies had been dead for centuries. We see, then, that the spirit continues to have conscience existence following the death of the body. Hence, it is wise to win souls because of the immortality of the soul. We see other passages that teach us this same truth.

For example, Paul was in a twixt between choosing life and death. He wrote, “For me to live is Christ and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labor: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am is a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you” (Phil., 1:21-23). Notice that if Paul died, he simply went to live with Christ. He did not cease to exist, but rather continued to exist and to live with Christ. Hence, we should want to save the soul because of the immortality of the soul.

3. Because of what God has done to save the soul. The scriptures are clear that God had a love for mankind because He saw that man’s soul was precious: The scriptures teach us in one of the most familiar verses of the Bible that “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). Paul commented on the infinite love of God for mankind when he said, “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). We see the value of the human soul and our need to try to save souls from the preciousness which Christ and God attached to it by the sacrifice of Jesus for our souls. If the soul had been something worth very little, God would not have sent Jesus to save it. The fact that Jesus came to this earth to seek and save sinners who were lost, such as you and me, shows me the preciousness of that soul.

4. Because our salvation depends on our efforts to save souls. The Great Commission charges Christians with the responsibility of going into the world and taking the gospel to every creature (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15, 16). Paul even warned of the danger of becoming so wrapped up in the affairs of this world that we neglect to do what God had commanded us. He wrote, “And the things which thou hast heard of me among many witnesses the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach other also . . . . No man that warreth entangles himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him that has chosen him to be a soldier” (2 Tim. 2:2). We have been charged with the responsibility of going into the world and winning the lost for Christ Jesus.

One of the passages that shows to me the responsibility that we have to win the lost for Christ is the statement that Paul made when he spoke to the Ephesian elders. In Luke’s account of that speech, Paul said, “Wherefore I take you to record this day that I am pure from the blood of all men” (Acts 20:26). Paul recognized that he was pure from the blood of all men because he had not shunned to declare unto them all of the counsel of God (Acts 20:27), that he had labored diligently to teach them both publicly and from house to house (Acts 20:20), and he had kept back nothing that was profitable unto them (Acts 20:20).

This passage also shows that the principle that was revealed by God to Ezekiel is also applicable to New Testament Christians, In Ezekiel 3 the following quotation occurs:

When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Yet if thou warn the wicked and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul. Again, when a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die: because thou has not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou has delivered thy soul (3:16-21).

This passage throws the responsibility for preaching the gospel upon the shoulders of every Christian. Not only does it show that there is a responsibility to preach, but more importantly it shows that one’s personal salvation is dependent upon his effort to reach the lost with the message from God. If I am not active trying to lead others to Jesus Christ, I am not faithful in my responsibility to God. Consequently, I should want to try to reach others with the gospel of Christ because my own salvation depends upon it.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 46, pp. 739-740
November 22, 1979

By Earl Robertson

After the contention between Barnabas and Paul as to whether they should take John Mark with them on the second tour of gospel preaching, Paul chose Silas and Barnabas chose Mark. It would have been scriptural to take Mark but Paul felt it would not be expedient. This action did not break the fellowship between Paul and Barnabas. They did not split apart over judgment and neither should we. Grounds for cleavage of fellowship must be faith.

The evangelistic efforts of Paul and Silas took them through Syria and Cilicia. “And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the degrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem. And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily” (Acts 16:4, 5). These brethren were of the conviction that churches could not be established in the truth (faith) unless they knew the apostolic decrees. Preaching apostolic doctrine will establish churches and it will maintain them! When Book, Chapter, and Verse preaching ceases that is when churches cease growing and start dying. I think we can judge the, kind of preaching some churches are getting by watching the development of conditions within these churches.

As they went forth preaching the highest authority in the kingdom of God (cf. Mt. 19:28; Acts 2:42), they did so in view of the churches keeping what was preached. Divine authority, expressed by the Lord’s apostles, can never-be exchanged for something else and the right results exist. Neither can man go beyond. what is written, binding such upon churches through his preaching (2 John 9). Institu-, tionalized brethren do this very thing! They preach a human judgment which goes beyond the word of the Lord and so bind it upon the churches that they split them apart. They will tell us that churches do not have- to support Potter Home and School or David Lipscomb College, but they go right on anyway to the division of fellowship. Apostolic decrees :were delivered “for to keep.”

Luke says, “And so were the churches established in-the faith, and increased in number daily.” It was by means of apostolic truth preached unto these brethren that they were established. in the faith, and increased in number daily. There is no -acceptable substitute for gospel preaching! This is a truth that some brethren will never learn. The present condition of some churches causes us to know this to be true.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 46, pp. 738
November 22, 1979