Truth Magazine

By Jefferson David Tant

At the outset, let me state that I have no personal axe to grind, nor am I seeking to push any product through these words. Over the years, I have been involved in various sales organizations, multi-level distributorships, etc., and feel that I can speak with some objectivity about the matter. I have been rebuked when cautioning people about some of the dangers, being accused of being envious, or whatever, and at the risk of being falsely accused again, let me give some observations from the viewpoint of a “distributor.”

The Negative Side

Parking-lot-warehouse syndrome. At times, it has seemed as though the parking lot became a product warehouse. As soon as services are over, brethren rush out, open trunks all over the place, an begin swapping products. That is unsightly, and leaves a bad image. I appreciated some brethren where I once labored who determined any trading that needed to be done after services would best be done in a nearby shopping center lot.

Shop talk at church. Visitors and other members can be turned off quickly by a group of people huddled together giving off such mysterious phrases as “PE,” “PV,” “lead,” “3%,” “qualify,” “rally,” etc. This tends to exclude our brethren and visitors from our conversations, when we should be showing hospitality. Save shop talk until later.

The “sic-‘ em”syndrome. The sight of a new member sets lights flashing and bells ringing, signaling “new customer,” or “new distributor.” Then the rush is on to see who gets there first with the pitch. Why not let the person at least get unpacked before rushing in with “You must listen to this fantastic offer.” And “Humility” won’t always seek to be first.

Cliques. Among some, you just are not “with it” unless you are involved in this or that sales group. I have known of those prospective Christians who were hesitant to become part of a local church because “If you’re not involved in , you don’t fit in very well.”

The thumb-screw problem. Some are quite insistent that those who sell under them “go, go, go” and “sell, sell, sell.” I know some who just quit because they felt they were constantly being pressured and harassed. Maybe they do not want a full-time income from their sales – just a supplement. Wouldn’t it be better for the sponsor to be content with a little less income from some, rather than to alienate them and leave hard feelings from the daily phone calls to inquire “How much are you going to sell today? How much tomorrow . . .?”

“I don’t have time. ” Sometimes, people get so involved in selling, what with training seminars, sales presentations. trips afield, etc., that they no longer have time to function as a member of the local church. They are gone so much they cannot teach a class, and are so involved they have little time for personal work programs, visiting those in need, etc. This is just a matter of setting priorities. “Seek ye first his kingdom . . .” said Jesus, and if I have to put the kingdom business second, third or lower on my priority list because of my involvement with a part time job, then I have things all mixed up.

“Don’t call me. I’ll call you. ” Yes, some are quite eager to get others set up in business, sell the product, deliver the product, and deposit the money. But when there is a refund due, or maybe a distributor decides he just isn’t cut out for this and wants to return the product, there is sometimes difficulty in making connection. This sometimes goes on for weeks and weeks. Such is entirely against the spirit of Christ, who gave us a little saying we call “The Golden Rule” (Matt. 7:12). Paul encouraged us to “owe no man anything” (Rom. 13:8), and to “take thought for things honorable in the sight of all men” (Rom. 12:17). It is good to practice this advice scrupulously – good for the seller and the buyer.

The “Surprise! Fooled you” game. I have heard some express great resentment at being invited into a fellow Christian’s home for an evening of pleasant social companionship, only to find to their dismay that as soon as they sat down, they activated a hidden switch that (a) fastened seat belts around them, (b) turned off the lights, (c) flopped a projector into position, (d) lowered a screen from the wall, and (e) showed a film presenting “The Business Opportunity of the Millennium.” It’s not that they minded the sales presentation, but it was the deception that galled them. Brethren, you will win more friends and influence more people by being honest with them as to the nature of your gracious invitation.

The Positive Side

Please don’t get the idea that I am “death” on involvement in these marketing plans. It is just that I have seen the abuses and feel they are unnecessary and can be avoided with some forethought and an awareness of the potential problems. There are some definite advantages that can be realized.

More contacts. Some people view their customers, as well as distributors they have sponsored, in the light of their responsibility to “preach the gospel to the whole world.” In one congregation where I was, 11 were converted one year solely through such contacts. This has, of course, spread in the ensuing years, and at this writing the husband of one of those converted is preaching the gospel. The often, and close, contacts we have with people in these business dealings can be most productive if our minds are attuned to the opportunities.

More income. We must be honest and consider that most people get involved in these sales organizations because they need extra money (and who doesn’t these days?) Now, what are you going to do with than money? I have known of those who took part-time jobs in order that they might turn over the whole profit to the church because of a special need at that season. Others I know are using their extra income to send to missionaries, to buy material and equipment to facilitate their personal teaching, to help the needy, etc. No, I am not suggesting that we must turn every penny so earned to such projects, but certainly we should remember the Lord and his work according to our prosperity. Right?

More free time. While some might become too involved in too many things, others who might do well in these matters are actually seeking a way to maintain their needed income, and yet have more time to devote to the Lord’s work. I have those in mind who are planning to free themselves from a 9 to 5 job, with a view to continuing (or increasing) their present level of income by means of their new selling career. With a less demanding job, time-wise, they will increase their involvement in teaching others the gospel. Others are hoping to support themselves so they might preach the gospel in needy areas.

When all is said and done, our opportunities can be either a bane or a blessing. It just depends upon our attitude towards them, whether we talk about selling insurance, Avon, Amway, Slender Now, Nutrilite, Hoda, Sara Conventry Jewelry, or Giant Earthworms (which you use for bait, naturally).

Truth Magazine XXIII: 42, pp. 682, 684
October 25, 1979

By Jeffery Kingry

My desire in this confrontation is to ignore it. I have always written and preached knowing that my words would have to stand before the Righteous Judge. When I made mistakes I corrected them. I do not feel that I have written anything that deserves the response you are reading. I believe my material will stand or fall by itself. My primary reason for responding is as a personal favor to the editor. I would not like to leave him to face my accusers alone.

Ron’s article is like a scene I witnessed once at the Grand Canyon. A group of people stood on the rim beholding in awed silence the rocky magnificence spread before and below them. A young lady elbowed her way through the group, took one look of indifference at the vast steep sloped valley, stifled a yawn and put on some makeup. Then she abruptly asked, “When do we eat?” Her comment revealed absolutely nothing about the scenery and was no judgment of the Grand Canyon. Instead, it pronounced profound judgment upon the woman.

I do not compare myself or my writing to the Grand Canyon. I merely use it as an illustration. My efforts are more a work of “art graven by man’s device.” Not everyone has the same taste in art. But our comments about something that someone else has done unveils our inner standards of judgment, our aesthetic values, our experience, our inner prejudices

and preferences. Ron does not see things as they are, but through what he is. I am willing to let the Lord judge me, I just wish Ron were. My writing has dealt with real human needs, with life as it is lived, and with problems that are real and not imagined. I believe God’s word addresses all of life. We sometimes miss seeing God at work in the world around us because we do not have enough of God in our hearts. We do not see Christ identified with every human hunger and thirst, with every human ailment, and all loneliness and hurt. We miss seeing Him out there, because we do not have Him in here – in our hearts.

Of Motive And Blankets

I could not possibly respond to everything that has been brought up, but I will try and touch a few points. John McCort reviews all that I have said in the article and calls it “Blanket condemnation . . . .” He discounts my original paragraph denying such with the illustration of a gossip (“Now I am not gossiping about _______ and then go ahead and gossip about them). Of course, illustrations do not prove anything. They merely illustrate. But if you will indulge me, John’s article reminds me of the uncharitable brother who declared in a conflict within a local church, “I know what he said, but what he meant was . . .”

When I mentioned “the seamy side of get it rich quick way to riches,” I assumed that those coversant in the English language would understand that there is a “finished side” and a “seamy side” to most every garment. The dictionary defines the word as “worse, or less pleasant or presentable.” If I had written about the “seamy side of politics, preaching, or journalism,” I doubt that anyone would accuse me of indicting all preachers, politicians, or writers. “The wicked flee when no man pursueth ….

It appears as though some brethren want me to say that they have liberty to sell Amway, Slender Now, insurance, Mutual Funds, Bibles, books, etc. But, no one took it away. The issues raised in my article was not buying and selling for profit. Several brethren who sell Amway, and who have sold other things like insurance, mutual funds, etc. commented to me that they did not misunderstand the article, and felt that strong exhortations need to continue to be given. The sinful and questionable actions of some give them a bad name. I have no doubt that there are many honorable brethren who sell and make gain to provide for their own needs and maintain their virtue while doing so. My article was directed at the covetous, worldly, exploitative, materialistic, and indulgent.

I would encourage John to read the article again. Men who sell Amway and other similar products have attempted to equate their work as “godly” because they make contacts to teach the gospel. That is deceived. Men do not sell to preach the gospel. Selling Amway is not teaching the gospel. It is a justification for selling that incidentally contacts are made that might also prove fruitful in preaching the gospel. But, people do not go into Amway to do personal work. They go into it to make money. Making money is fine (we all do it). My objection is in the deception that whatever else they may do in the pursuit of prospects is justified because a “prospect” is also a potential convert. Think about what that line of reasoning justifies! I could open a house for shady ladies of the night on that justification.

It is not sinful “to support one’s own preaching efforts instead of receiving full support from the brethren.” But then, I never said or inferred that it was. In point of fact, what I wrote was, “I am not opposed to free enterprise or to selling a product for profit, or even a preacher working for a short while to supplement (or provide) his support. I have done all three and believe that Christians have the liberty to do so.” I do not know what else to say, John.

In drawing illustrations of personal experiences with salesmen /brethren it was not my intent to paint a picture of a cat and not put c-a-t beneath it. An illustration only makes clear, it does not prove anything. When an illustration becomes the point of contention rather than the truth it illustrates, it has destroyed its purpose. It was not my intent that anyone should recognize themselves in the illustration.

Some brethren recognized themselves in the portrait drawn, and objected to my truthfulness. Cecil Willis once gave me some sound advice that had been given to him by an older brother: “If your name is not called, do not stand up.”

But since some brethren did not like my illustrations, I would like to use a few from the many letters of appreciation folks sent me on this article.

From Tennessee: “You hit the nail on the head when you wrote that they see the church as their `private fishing hole.’ How much more the salesmen/preachers who hold meetings . . . . during their meetings more prospects are sought and more distributors signed . . . . Allow me one personal testimony . . . . the visiting preacher and the local preacher (previously signed up) came to dinner . . . . before we knew it we were surrounded by cans, bottles, charts, diagrams, and other evangelical aids. But, then, someone checked a clock and a mad dash to the meeting house ensued. Although he had just given a smooth and enthusiastic presentation, and had preached 25 years . . . his sermon was dull, disjointed, and almost entirely read from notes.”

From Kentucky: “Got the mail at lunch and couldn’t wait to write . . . . I just returned from a visit with some of the brethren . . . . two of them, whom I have known since 1962, got into a verbal battle in the (church) parking lot because one had just signed up an Amway Distributor with ___________ instead of ___________’s group.”

From Washington: “At we had the same problem with those who were selling as you mentioned in your article. In fact it got to be so bad that, at one point, I was afraid to greet any of my brethren after services for fear that they would try and push some of the stuff on me again . . . .”

A Truth Magazine staff writer: “I have to say `Amen.’ I would think that gospel preachers had better judgment than to join get rich quick schemes and use innocent brethren as their sales victims . . . . I predict that the next fad will be the selling of gasoline and oil additives for better mileage. A lot of preachers need to add more time to that which they now spend with the Bible so that they will get better spiritual mileage.”

From Georgia: “Oh, I pray that (our preacher) would work as hard toward salvation of souls as (he) does towards this world’s goods, for we know that the harvest is white and the laborer’s few. I know that (he) will give you some real trouble about your article, but maybe on the other hand, this might help him.”

From Florida: “The one thing that burns me the most, is that I used to love to see those brethren. Before they got involved in the business we would talk about the Lord, the church, the work of God, and all the things that mean so much. Now I see them coming a mile away and avoid them. I hate what the devil has done!”

These are but a few of the comments from letters all over the U.S. that I have received. I do not believe that some brethren realize the wide-spread resentment and anger that exists towards those who have used their spiritual relationship for personal profit.

The Issue

I have been accused of being too specific and too broad. It is my conviction that I have been too correct, and have accurately described something that we have skirted the edge for too long in our relationships with one another. I have observed that so long as we indict “everyone and no one” by our preaching and writing there is often very little response.

It is my view that the objections have been peripheral to the substance of what I wrote. But then, how could any Christian come out in favor of greed, indulgence, covetousness, worldliness, exploitation and materialism? I will certainly be more careful of what I write in the future (“burned once . . . “), but I do not believe it will make much difference. It all reminds me of something Brother Larry Hafley once wrote, “Reactions to articles in Truth Magazine run the gauntlet of opinion from the sublime to the silly. An all too frequent judgment is, `We agree with what you say, we just do not like the way that you say it.’ . . . We shall continue to oppose error and expose its leaders and urge others to do the same. For those who flinch at the truth, there is no way to say the right thing the right way, and we do not propose to even try” (Truth Magazine 3/14/74, p. 296). 1 close with no comments or apologies about the purity of my motives in writing. After all, l have written nothing that might call it in question.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 42, pp. 680-681
October 25, 1979

By John McCort

Normally I have been slightly uneasy with responding to an article written by another brother in Christ. This response, counter-response cycle can degenerate into endless wranglings (ad infinitum et nauseam). I feel compelled, though, to respond to what I consider to be an unfair attack Brother Kingry has leveled at preachers who engage in private business enterprises. Brother Kingry wrote an article entitled, “The Rich Life Is Not Slender Now.” It appeared in the August 2, 1979 issue of Truth Magazine.

Let me first say that I agree with some of the basic premises of Brother Kingry’s article. I wholeheartedly believe that covetousness and materialism present a clear and present danger to the church. Preachers who engage in private business enterprise need to be cautious about the inherent dangers in these enterprises as would any other Christian. I would also agree that some have abused these private enterprises. I have been offended by some of the rude tactics that some brethren have used to peddle their wares. I maintain, though, that brethren have the right to engage in these enterprises and that many engage in these enterprises without becoming materialistic. Brother Kingry dealt with an abuse of the system but in doing so leveled a blanket condemnation of the system and those engaged in the system.

Let me also say that I have no vested interests to protect. I am not an Amway Salesman. I am not presently engaged in any business endeavor and I do not plan on going into a private business anytime in the near future. Thus, I am not writing this article because Jeff happened to tamper with my goose that laid the golden egg. This is not a case where the hit dog yelled. I do feel, though, that Brother Kingry has been unfair, unkind, and even vicious in his attack on preaching brethren who make tents on the side.

Brother Kingry began his article with a disclaimer. “It seems as though some articles I write, though obviously directed;’at the abuse of a system, are invariably taken as a blanket disavowal of the proper use of a thing . . . . I am not opposed to free enterprise or to selling a product for a profit, or even a preacher working for a living for a short while to supplement his support.” Even though Jeff made this disclaimer he ended up leveling a blanket condemnation of those involved specifically in selling Slender Now and Amway. He reminded me of brethren who say, “Now I am not gossiping about . . .” and then go on ahead and gossip about them.

Brother Kingry made an attack on those involved in the direct distributor system that Amway and Slender Now are based on. He said, “Every person signed up to sell the product becomes a source of income for the one who signs him up. A set percentage of whatever he sells goes to the one who introduced him. A refined system of parasitism that feeds on greed. ” The system, according to Jeff, is parasitism and, thus, everyone involved in a system is a parasite who feeds on a system of greed. This is a blanket condemnation, Jeff’s disclaimer not withstanding!

Brother Kingry had some hard things to say about preachers who were no longer receiving their financial support from brethren because their enterprises were profitable enough to support them. He said, “In their deceived blinding greed I have heard direct distributors explain how their Amway business enabled them more opportunities to preach the gospel than they ever had as preachers. They even believed it, they had repeated it so long as justification for leaving the fields of the Lord to plow their own fields with dollars.” These men, according to Jeff, were deceived, blinded with greed, and had left the Lord’s fields. I know of several men who have financed their own missionary tours with money earned from private business enterprises. Jeff discussed a man in Tampa, Florida who labored for free with a congregation. Had that man left the Lord’s fields? It is up to Brother Kingry to prove that it is sinful for a man to support his own preaching efforts instead of receiving full support from the brethren. (Furthermore, I do not know that it is Jeff’s place to judge the affairs of a congregation in Tampa, Florida when he is in Akron, Ohio. Jeff has only presented one side of the picture.)

Jeff made a broad denunciation of those who drove Cadillacs with money earned from Slender Now sales. He also criticized those who promoted their products at the Florida College Lectures. He said, “At the Florida College Lectureship a few years ago, the Slender Now Cadillacs were in plentiful and ostentatious show. As the week progressed, so did those who made their rounds promoting their respective products.” Again, a blanket condemnation is made of those who drove Cadillacs and promoted their products.

Jeff made another blanket denunciation when he said, “These salesmen are like those described by the apostle Paul, ‘He is proud knowing nothing . . . they have erred from the faith . . . .” He made a blanket statement about those who labored in the Lord’s vineyard for free. He stated, “For such are false apostles, deceitful workers . . . Satan’s ministers; whose end will be according to their works (2 Cor. 11:8, 15).” He further stated, “Paul’s work of sacrifice, laboring with his own hands in honest work to further the gospel ‘taking nothing of the Gentiles because of His name’s sake’ (3 John 6-9) is the exact opposite of those who come to ‘labor’ with a church for `free’ that they might take their money in a way other than directly out of the treasury.”

Brother Kingry was not only guilty of making unkind blanket statements but he also stated several principles which I think are in error. He made the statement, “I don’t know that I want to be or should be independent of my brethren.” What is wrong with achieving a certain degree of financial independence so that brethren can divert their resources into other needy areas? One brother financed his own needs for about one year in the Philippines from money earned in private enterprise. It was money that he would have had to have raised from the brethren. Was it wrong for Alexander Campbell to have been financially independent enough not to take wages from the brethren? Was Campbell covetous? Many of the old pioneer preachers provided much of their own support and still preached full-time.

I have known of several gospel preachers who have been destitute in their declining years because they never had enough resources to provide for their needs in retirement. I have known of many faithful men who needed to retire due to failing health and have been unable to do so because of financial considerations.

Many preachers would not be able to educate their children if it were not for working wives or private businesses. Many preachers have lived all of their lives in homes provided by the brethren. When they reach retirement the brethren own the homes and the preachers are left destitute. Some preachers choose to let their wives work to supplement their incomes for education and retirement purposes. Are those men with working wives covetous and carnally minded because they have achieved a certain degree of financial independence? The worthy woman of Proverbs 31 is pictured as being a business woman as was Lydia in Acts 16. Would it have been wrong for them to have been preachers’ wives if it afforded them financial independence from brethren?

Jeff seems to have the attitude that unless a man is fully supported by brethren and has no outside financial considerations he is less than a full-time gospel preacher. The issue is this: Can a man have outside business enterprises and still preach the gospel without covetousness? One editor recently said to me, “What I do with my free time is my business. I don’t play golf or fish in my spare time. I edit a paper.” I don’t necessarily think that all gospel preachers must be employed on a full-time basis. If a brother decides to cut back on his preaching load and make tents then that is his business. Thanks be to God that we have some men who are willing to work at secular jobs and go to some small, isolated churches which cannot afford to hire a man on a full time basis.

Is it wrong to earn a living from private business enterprises which cater mainly to brethren? If it is then our editor is making merchandise of the brethren. His salary is derived from the sale of books and periodicals which are sold almost exclusively to brethren. Some brethren live solely off of royalties from the sale of books sold to brethren. Amway and Slender Now salesmen are not the only ones who fish in that pond. I understand that Brother Kingry himself has recently entered a publishing venture to produce a product to be sold almost exclusively to Christians. “For wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself” (Rom 2:1). I wonder which pond Jeff plans to fish in??? Some insurance salesmen cater almost exclusively to brethren but I do not think they are making merchandise of them. According to Brother Kingry’s position Paul could not have sold one of his tents to the brethren because he would have been making merchandise of the brethren.

Thanks be to God for brethren who have been prudent enough in business to accumulate a little money. To whom do we turn when a building needs erected or bonds need to be purchased, or when the church needs bailed out of a financial bind? To whom do we turn in extreme cases of benevolence? We turn to brethren who have resources and are willing to use them in the Lord’s service.

Money is not the root of all evil. It is the love of money. It is the covetous attitude which people have toward money. Job was not evil because he was wealthy and neither was Abraham. Only those who are wealthy and are not willing to use their wealth in God’s service are sinful.

Preachers are sometimes put in difficult financial positions due to the fact that brethren provide them with very few fringe benefits. The brethren have pension plans, group health insurance, etc. and homes which build equity. Sometimes preachers are not paid enough to do their work and provide these benefits for themselves. They must supplement their incomes. Are brethren covetous just because they have comfortable pensions rewarded by their employers for long and faithful service? I think not.

Brother Kingry has established an arbitrary financial mold which preachers and brethren must fit into. Brother Kingry seems to think that he is not wealthy or covetous but that nearly everyone who sells a little soap out of his basement has fallen into the clutches of materialism and greed. Why didn’t Brother Kingry charge that these who wear beautiful, three-piece vested suits are materially minded? Could it be because that would have indicted Brother Kingry? Wealth is a very relative, subjective thing. I am sure that the Filipino brethren would consider you to be a very wealthy man, Brother Kingry. Even the poorest of American preachers would be considered somewhat materialistic by the indigent Filipino preachers. On the other hand, the wages that most preachers earn, even when those wages are supplemented by selling a little soap, are very meager in comparison to what the average Teamster trucker makes. The President of General Motors recently reported that the average worker now earns $16 an hour when fringe benefits are included in the wage. The average government worker in Washington D.C. makes far more than I could ever hope to make. But I do not believe that all government workers and truck drivers are necessarily covetous because they make more money than I.

Brother Kingry, you have arbitrarily established your level of prosperity as the standard of financial orthodoxy which you have no right to do. You have no right to judge the motives or intentions of brethren in Christ who choose to supplement their incomes. Brother Kingry predicted that he would get in trouble with some for writing that article. I can only speak for myself. I highly resent the kind of caustic and judgmental journalism which flows from Brother Kingry’s pen. In the last several years other writers have begun to engage in this kind of hypercritical journalism and I think it is ungodly. I hope it can be kept to a minimum.

Another Point Of View

P.O. Box 26

Milton, Vermont 05468

Sept. 13, 1979

Truth Magazine

Mike Willis–Editor

3579 Ruthridge Ct.

Dayton, Oh. 45432

Dear brother Mike,

I am writing about a recent article written by brother Jeff Kingry regarding the subject of materialism and Amway. I thought his article was excellent and I hope it shook a good number of trees. There are other things that parallel the Amway disease, such as this motor vehicle product. I have had poor experiences with brethren peddling that product. I received a long distance phone call from a respected preacher acquaintance – asking me to become a distributor and purchase not just a little bit to sell, but a case! Why am I subjected to such pressurized sales situations? Because I am a Christian and he has taken the relationship and abused it. If I say no, how does that look (here I am a young preacher and

an older respected preacher called long distance, at considerable expense, to pressure me into buying into the program – under him, of course). This is not right. He should not be making merchandise of the contacts he makes because of his station in the Lord’s body. He is supported to preach the gospel, not make a business opportunity out of his brethren. I do not believe that this is very expedient . . . .

I remain sincerely and brotherly yours,

K.E. Clayton

Ken Weliever

723 15th Avenue

W. Palmetto, Florida 33561

August 2, 1979

Mr. Mike Willis

3579 Ruthridge Court

Dayton, Ohio 45432

Dear Mike:

I am writing to call to your attention an article by Jeff Kingry which appeared in the August 2, 1979, issue of Truth Magazine, which I believe to be filled with inaccuracies, untruths and misrepresentations. I have written Jeff a personal letter regarding this matter, of which I am enclosing a copy to you. Since it points out the areas of disagreement, I will not go into them again with you.

However, I would ask your help in encouraging Jeff to correct this matter not only before God . . . . as well as many other business associates but to the readers of Truth Magazine, too.

Mike, I realize that you cannot check out every article that is submitted to you for publication, and would not expect you to do so. But as the editor you bear some responsibility in the choosing of what material to publish. It is my opinion that such an article has no place in Truth Magazine in the first place! Jeff would have done better to have pointed out the supposed sins of his preacher friends on the spot instead of waiting 18 months and printing such in a brotherhood paper.

Furthermore, if you or Jeff feel a certain business is operating unethically or making misleading claims, it would be more appropriate to report such to the Better Business Bureau or the Federal Trade Commission. Believe me, they are well staffed to investigate the “seamy side of the `get it quick’ way to riches.”

I don’t deny the right of my brethren to go into business to sell religious papers, books, operate schools or any other venture that is right and lawful. I would appreciate it if they would accord me the same right without casting reflection, making misrepresentations, or spreading innuendoes about our operation and activities.

Thank you in advance for any help you can render’ in clearing up this matter.

Brotherly,

Ken Weliever

1021 Welford Dr.

Xenia, Ohio 45385

20 Aug. 1979

Mr. Mike Willis, Editor of Truth Magazine

3579 Ruthridge Court

Dayton, Ohio 45432

Dear Mike,

Rarely do I write a journal editor in hopes of communicating to him and the readers my concern over an incident, article, or trend. My judgment is fallible and I wish to dictate to no one, but this letter registers a distress that has deepened in my mind over a period of several years. Numerous brethren (not limited to preachers) have commented about sharing this unhappy concern. The proverb about flies in the ointment assumes the good of ointment but also the sad effect of the flies. A frequent Truth Magazine writer, Brother Jeffery Kingry of Akron, Ohio, writes much that is good, but flies in the ointment are having a hurtful effect.

While warning brethren not to combine economic and political commentary with the gospel, the writer persists in offering the same. His valid warning is contradicted in practice when he initiates social, economic, and political debate-in religious journalism. Thus, he initiated a discussion which led him to charge his respondent with right-wing fascism, hardness of heart, unrighteous decrees, and despite for the poor! Rather than apologizing for introducing such unsuitable material or for intemperance in pressing it, Jeff left you as the Editor to apologize for both (Truth Magazine 15 Sept. 1977, pp. 571-73; 2 Mar. 1978, pp. 153-54; 22 June 1978, pp. 410-12; 7 Sept. 1978, pp. 570, 572). Instead of learning from this mistake and in spite of disclaiming economic debate, he continues to insert such matter, as in his simplistic analysis of free enterprise economics as nothing but systematic greed (28 June 1979, pp. 428-30). He does not even guard himself by referring to abuses but attacks “the system” as a flower child or Marxist professor might do. Rather than join the debate, I plead for a cessation of such flies in the gospel ointment. My family has sent Truth Magazine to 20-25 other families each year, and sacrificed to do so (just ask the Bookstore how far behind we stay on the bill). We are doing them a service only when spiritual edification is provided, not trendy economic and political analyses.

A pattern of self-contradiction appears again in an article which decries “a rising propensity to see problems and their solutions as `brotherhood wide”‘ and which pleads for problems “bigger than me or the local church where I work” to be left alone to God’s providence (25 May, 1978, pp. 341-42). Instead of clearly defining some abuse he may have had in mind, the author leaves me dizzy. He is not teaching a local assembly about problems and solutions in its midst, but addresses what he conceives as a brotherhood-wide problem and its solution. He speaks not in a local pulpit but in a paper which circulates among brethren far and wide to stimulate study on matters both immediate and long-term, both local and general. The author thus paints himself as part of a propensity which he decries. The contradiction is blatant, the article too confused to edify.

Jeff’s article on “Intellectualism” points up the clarity and simplicity of gospel preaching and warns against preachers mimicking scholars in the age of “expert knowledge” by producing “Intensive College-Level” materials beyond the average Christian’s grasp (22 March 1979, pp. 200-202). Yet, in six issues of Vanguard (25 May – 10 Aug. 1978) on “The Subliminal Phenomena,” Jeff winds through a plethora of research public and secret – on such things as behavioral psychology’ physiological mechanisms, irradiation parameters, electromagnet stimulus, supraliminal presentations, electrically stimulated phosphenes, psycho-civilized society, alpha-rhythm frequency, visceral response, electro-encephalograph, galvanic skin response, psychoanalytic psychology, pathology-intensifying effects, and psycho neural pathways. Whew! This purports to show that Satan can tempt us through such things as “a subliminal variation in color shade” which cannot be discovered except by “knowledgeable” experts but which is readily picked up by the brain of the average person without his knowledge. The message is then transferred from the unconscious cognitive function of the brain to “our intuitive, irrational, and purely emotional side” leading us to sin without ever realizing why. “Insidiously, however, the more subliminal, or deeply buried a stimulus, the greater is its behaviourable effect.” The subliminal does not lead us to sin so long as our “conscious part” maintains control, but “the subliminal message” can “enter cur subconscious” and “assail our conscious.” These articles are supposed to make us aware of Satan’s devices “to pull us away from the Lord.” The discussion gives a pound of confusion for every ounce of clarity. Not having the time, energy, or inclination to plow through the 40 pieces of technical research material cited, I am still ignorant of this device of Satan. Brethren who have commented to me on the articles are in the same boat. There seems to be a conspiracy on the part of preachers to keep brethren ignorant of this device -why else do we hear no gospel sermons on Satan’s Use of subliminal-Psychoneural-Irradiation-Electromagnetic Phosphenes or Alpha-Rhythm Frequencies in Psycho-Civilized Society for Pathology-Intensifying Effects?

It is frustrating to read generalizations which are hopelessly broad and reckless, impugning the motives of a host of Christ’s servants on the basis of highly subjective personal judgment. Jeff opines that “the vast majority of the brethren . . . . covet the approval” of certain exalted brethren “amongst us” (Truth Mag. 23 Aug. 1979, p. 534). No amount of explaining, fuming, or whimpering can hide the unmitigated gall of such a judgment! No one but the Lord even knows “the vast majority of the brethren” and has access to the information Jeff reports. The report is specious and the charge impudent. A fly in the ointment. Another time we are told that church bulletins, subscription journals, correspondence Bible courses, fair booths, radio programs, and the like reflect the “increasing unwillingness” of brethren “to meet and talk to people” (Associate Editorial, Sentry Magazine, 28 Feb. 1978, p. 5). For any instance of alleged abuse where Jeff wants to name and charge a brother with using these methods to escape contact with people, I can easily produce dozens of brethren who faithfully use such mediums to establish contact with people. But Jeff says the motive of escape is unwitting; how then shall we apply that judgment to his persistent efforts to establish his own subscription journal or a church bulletin with an instant and large national mailing list? He would loathe to be judged by his own pronouncements.

The rich and his friends may have reacted to “The Rich Life” as Jeff expected (Truth Magazine, 2 Aug. 1979, pp. 487-89), but they are not the only ones. I speak not as a rich person, a seller, a distributor, or a promoter, but as a reader and for other readers like myself. As part of a continuing pattern, this article caused me to think back on several others and thus prompted my letter. The abuses decried have been justly attacked by writers such as Irvin Himmel and David Tant without pretending to have surveyed “hundreds of brethren” and convicted them of greed, parasitism, and sordid schemes to take advantage of other brethren without serving them. A handful – several – too many – but hundreds? How many hundreds and how was the figure derived? Jeff pretends to know a preacher who seriously says that one product is better than the gospel itself. The preacher is a coward who was awed by Jeff’s circumspection in the face of avarice. “The blasphemy and sickness of it was too evident except to the most corrupt.” What is evident to me, even without knowing what gospel preacher, is that Jeff has caricatured a conversation without naming the preacher because the man would blister Jeff’s britches for misrepresentation. I speak with confidence after having read so many of these illustrations in Jeff’s articles that they just do not have the ring of accuracy; they are too pat and invariably make a hero of one person. Abuses in selling can be opposed in no uncertain terms without these vilifications, potshots, and character assassinations. A fly in the ointment.

Why not a private letter to the party? (1) A general not personal and (2) public not private matter is being dealt with, and (3) public and private efforts made by others in a responsible fashion have not produced apology, correction, or a change of direction. We have no ill will for one who is a congenial acquaintance and who produces much good ointment. We are simply frustrated at the flies in the ointment and have finally chosen this means to register the frustration widely felt. Jeff’s effectiveness will be enhanced not hurt if someone by some means can convince him of the presence of, harm done by, and duty to remove these flies from his ointment. Since he was on the Truth Magazine staff for a time and has continued to write for it, perhaps he will consider a letter to its editor speaking for frustrated readers.

Yours for service to Christ.

Ron Halbrook

Copy to Jeff Kingry: RH

Truth Magazine XXIII: 42, pp. 678-679
October 25, 1979

By Mike Willis

Editor’s Note

I have received several comments regarding Jeff Kingry’s article “The Rich Life Is Not Slender Now” (August 2, 1979). I am publishing some of these comments, along with John McCort’s review of Jeff’s article, to give our readers some idea of what others are saying about the article. From the number of comments and the reputations of those who are objecting to the article, I think that one can see that merely dismissing these criticisms as “the hit dog howled,” “I have been misunderstood,” or some other similar rationalization will not deal with the problem.

Jeff’s article contained some excellent food for thought with reference to every man’s fight against materialism. It also sounded some legitimate dangers faced by any gospel preacher who decides to become involved in selling any product. Too, it frankly condemned some abuses of which some selling brethren have been guilty which many of us have felt for years.

I have received enough complimentary comments orally regarding the article to know that: (1) some preachers are abusing a right to engage in selling either through allowing their local work to suffer because of their involvement or using their relationship as a preacher to make sales contracts; (2) selling brethren have been guilty of using their hospitality as a guise for making a sales pitch on a sufficient number of occasions that a number are complaining about it. Knowing that this was so, I felt that there was enough worthwhile material in Jeff’s initial article to print it. Though I would edit it more carefully had I the opportunity to run the article again, 1 still think that the primary thesis of Jeff’s manuscript is correct. The things complimented in the letters quoted by Jeff are not the matters to which objection is made.

There were some specific objections to the article which I think need to be mentioned in addition to those mentioned by letters printed below and John McCort’s review of the article. I want to mention these as follows:

(l) Unjustified criticism of a legitimate business operation. Jeff described the selling of Amway as on “the seamy side of the ‘get it quick’ way to riches.” Furthermore, he called the profit making system used by them and several other firms “a refined system of parasitism.” Both of these comments leave somewhat to be desired, so far as I am concerned. As an editor, I should not have allowed these statements to be printed. Those agencies of our government which investigate dishonest business practices have found nothing wrong with this method of sales. Frankly, some money-making systems will be attractive to one man and unattractive to another; I would appreciate both sides keeping their comments regarding these matters to themselves. Truth Magazine is not a forum to discuss business enterprises. In my opinion, Jeff made a blanket indictment of every salesman of these products in making these statements.

(2) References to those wearing “Free”pins. Little did I know, that only 3-5 gospel preachers among us wear “Free” pins; otherwise, Jeff’s reference to his conversation with two of them would never have been printed. 1 need to also mention that these two preachers’ remembrance of that conversation is significantly different from that related by Brother Kingry. In Brother Kingry’s first intended response to criticism to his article, he said that what he had written was a caricature (“the deliberately distorted picturing or imitation of a person, literary style, etc. by exaggerating features or mannerisms for satirical effect,” Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary). He should not have written in such a way as to leave the impression that he was reporting facts when he was caricaturing; if he was reporting facts, he would have done better to report only such facts as he could document. Yet, Jeff neither corrected this matter nor proved it.

(3) Motive judging. Jeff frankly engaged in some motive judging in the article as, for example, when he mentioned a particular preacher who moved to a church to work without income but moved to work with that group of people in order to sell his goods. I do not know how Jeff could prove that point. Other statements in this article judge motives in a similar way, as Brother McCort ably demonstrates, and make blanket condemnations of preachers who sell products to supplement their income, in spite of Jeff’s denial of making blanket condemnations. Yet, Jeff did not admit being guilty of anything or make correction of them. Instead, he said, “I do not believe that I have written anything that deserves the response you are reading.” Noticeably none of the letters quoted by Jeff defended these abuses.

A Style Of Writing

All of these comments raise a serious problem with regard to a certain style of writing which has become more acceptable among some brethren in recent years than I care to admit. That style of writing is this: to draw a man’s picture so clearly that anyone vaguely familiar with the circumstances surrounding the incident knows who is being talked about, but, to fail to specify who is intended. This is somewhat like drawing a picture of a cat but not writing c-a-t underneath it. Everyone who knows what a cat is knows what has been drawn. This leaves the injured party little recourse. If he replies to the article, he is told “the hit dog howled” or “I did not necessarily have you in mind but if the shoe fits, wear it.” If he does not respond, those who know the situation think he does not respond because of the weakness of his case. Furthermore, it leaves the editor in somewhat of a predicament for editing these articles. He knows nothing, on some occasions, of the particular incidents referred to and, therefore, cannot tell how accurately the writer has related his information. He has no means of checking it out. Hence, he must decide to publish it or not publish it solely on the writer’s reputation. After several such denials of one’s stories by several different parties, an editor soon becomes suspicious of every story written by the writer. When that happens, his material can have little value to the paper.

For these reasons, I would prefer that our writers refrain from writing innuendos. If you have a charge to make against a brother, name the brother and the incident which you have in mind and document your charges. This specifies who is intended by your article and allows the indicted party an opportunity to respond to your charges. This appears to me to be a more honorable method of handling controversy than writing veiled potshots at one another.

Jeff’s reply to these reviews of his article is entitled “I Don’t Want To Do This.” I am sure that this expresses his motives. I am also aware that the same title could be appended to the review by John McCort and the letter to the editor by Ron Halbrook. (I might also add that the title could appropriately describe the “Editor’s Note.”) Yet, the same kind of conviction which prompted Jeff to write his initial article prompted their replies. When one writes for public consumption, he must be prepared to have his writings reviewed. Hence, in keeping with the open forum style of Truth Magazine, the following reactions to Brother Kingry’s article are published. I hope that having to face these public reactions to this article will help Jeff to be more responsible in his articles which appear in his new paper Horizons.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 43, p. 676
October 25, 1979