Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

Hosea’s statement, “Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone,” provides the basis for the Ephraim’s Idols column (4:17). Hosea prophesied about 750 B.C., or about thirty years before the fall of Israel to Assyria. The leaven of a lawless or apostate spirit worked in Israel until she was not fit to save. Her devotion to the calf worship of Jeroboam I and to the Baal worship introduced by Ahab and Jezebel was her downfall. Her sin was not only spiritual adultery or unfaithfulness, but also spiritual whoredom or prostitution. That is, she sold herself to false religion in seeking the pleasures of sin and the promise of prosperity. She joined herself to idolatry and reveled in its rewards. “Rejoice not, O Israel, for joy, as other people: for thou bast gone a whoring from thy God, thou hast loved a reward upon every cornfloor” (9:1).

Graphic figures describe the awful condition of Israel, also called Samaria or Ephraim. The nation was a harlot, joined to idols (4:17); a half-baked cake, fit only to be thrown out (7:8); a silly, senseless dove, fluttering desperately here and there in search of safety (7:1 I); a wild ass, running off in self-willed stubbornness (8:9); a blighted plant, with dead roots and no hope of fruit (9:16); and, a luxuriant vine running and making display of itself, but worthless to the husbandman (10:1). Israel had sown the wind and would reap all the fury of the whirlwind (8:7; 12:1).

God’s lawsuit against Israel charged her with an apostate spirit and many lawless deed. Truth and loyalty had been supplanted by lying and immorality. Rebuke was pointless because ignored. Israel had forgotten “the law of thy God” and, therefore, was “destroyed for lack of knowledge” (4:6). Not only the people, but also the priests who encouraged sin for their own advantage would be cut off. “The spirit of whoredoms” or harlotry had caused Israel to err, and Judah was forewarned not to partake of that spirit (vv. 12, IS). “Since Israel is stubborn like a stubborn heifer, can the Lord now pasture them like a lamb in a large field? Ephraim is joined to idols; let him alone.” Though the nation’s leaders “dearly love shame” – that is, they love the very things for which they should be ashamed – God will fill them with shame in destruction for their sins (vv. 16-19, HAS).

Ephraim, who stands for the nation, is hopeless; he is joined, or mated, to idols as a wife is joined to her husband. He is so hopelessly united with them that recovery now seems impossible. “Let him alone,” give him up to abandonment. This case is desperate, there is no hope (Homer Haily, The Minor Prophets, p. I51).

Israel found hope in its own solutions and was proud of its accomplishments. The prophet’s plea, the plea of God’s loving kindness, went unheeded. For, as Hosea explained, “Their deeds will not allow them to return to their God. For a spirit of harlotry is within them and they do not know the Lord” (5:4, NAS).

Rather than being old and dustry, the history of Israel is the’ record of current events! The first fifty years of the 19th century witnessed a call for the restoration of New Testament Christianity among all those professing to believe in Jesus Christ. Great strides were made. Thousands upon thousands gave up their denominational names, creeds, clergies, and councils in a return to Bible names, a simple confession of Jesus Christ, baptism into Him, and allegiance to Him and His word alone. Sadly, within the next fifty years an apostate spirit began to work as a leaven within the ranks of these simple Christians. Unity was destroyed as lawless deed were practiced and promoted. Missionary, benevolent, and edification societies centralized the work of local churches, compromising their autonomy in the name of “the great works we are doing.” These local churches lost their identity with the New Testament order of things in organization (Tit. 1:5). Instrumental music, choirs, and contests corrupted the simple plan of worship found in Scripture, as churches boasted, “But look how we’re growing.” The denominational concept of a local preacher serving as the lone “pastor” of a church supplanted the New Testament teaching on preachers, elders or pastors, and deacons. Efforts of such men as Benjamin Franklin, David Lipscomb, James A. Harding, and others who opposed apostasy did not succeed with many brethren.

Those determined to walk in the old paths came to the point of recognizing, with broken hearts, “Ephraim is join to idols.” A large segment of the restoration churches begun in the 19th century re-entered the border lands of conservative Protestant denominationalism with some misgivings or else settled down in that old country with comfort and pride. Such churches are generally known as Christian Churches or sometimes Church of christ (Instrumental) today. Another large group having historical roots in the restoration effort eventually joined the mainstream of liberal Protestantism and in 1968 proudly acknowledged full denominational status by means of an all-embracing organizational restructure. This group calls itself Disciples of Christ (Christian Church), or officially the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). By 1900 many brethren recognized that Ephraim was joined to his idols, left him alone, and began rebuilding the cause of New Testament Christianity.

Rebuilding according to the New Testament pattern of faith and practice continued with increasing zeal through the Second World War. Sadly, from about 1950 onward the spirit of apostasy worked in lawless deeds again: the work of churches was centralized through human institutions and “sponsoring” churches, and the spiritual mission of the church was gradually supplanted by social and recreational programs. After a quarter-century, many brethren have been forced to recognize with broken hearts, “Ephraim is joined to idols.” Efforts to warn and rebuke have been so ignored as to make them useless, in many quarters. When “their deeds will not allow them to return to their God” because of the “spirit of harlotry” within them, there is nothing to do but let them alone.

As we have turned to the task of rebuilding according to the New Testament pattern, a great many of us have lost track of Ephraim as he has pursued lawless deeds in an apostate spirit. While Ephraim may be too far gone into idolatry to return to New Testament teaching, we may still be instructed by his silly and stubborn course. “Though you, Israel, play the harlot, do not let Judah become guilty” (Hos. 4:15). The Ephraim’s Idols column will not generally give detailed reviews of apostate arguments from Scripture, but will give information as to Ephraim’s progress down the road of apostasy along with comments and observations. We do not intend to be totally negative, but wish as well to commend from time to time the efforts of faithful brethren in pursuing New Testament ideals. The best defense against the error of Ephraim’s Idols is a Scriptural offense in walking according to the Bible pattern in all things. Most of Ephraim’s Idols are imported from denominationalism, so we expect to make observations on some events among the denominations. Though our focus will be on Ephraim’s idols, we shall be free to commend the good and to urge fidelity to our Lord’s Word in every way. Building up all things good must complement pulling down the evil, or else the whole point of our labor is lost (Jer. 1:10)!

Truth Magazine XXIII: 9, pp. 149-150
March 1, 1979

By Mike Willis

We have previously studied the subject of the all-sufficiency of the church from two points of view. First of all, I showed that the church which God created was perfect in that God made it adequate to do what He intended for it to do. The imperfections in the church are all human, the same kind of imperfections which will exist in any other institution and which cannot be avoided or improved by the creation of some other organization. Secondly, I demonstrated that the apostasies which have occurred with reference to the missionary societies and sponsoring church arrangements for evangelism were borne of unbelief. The leaders of these movements were men who became convinced that they could improve upon the all-sufficient church. They were convinced that the church as it was given to us by God was unable to do the work which God gave it to do. Hence, they thought that they could improve upon it.

However, we are presently being faced with another perversion pertaining to the all-sufficiency of the church. Brethren have become convinced that such organizations as Florida College, Cog dill Foundation, Vanguard, etc. are sinful because they deny the all-sufficiency of the church. This conclusion is borne out of a misunderstanding of the meaning of the all-sufficiency of the church. Hence, we need to give it some of our attention at the present.

To some, the statement of the all-sufficiency of the church means that no other group can be formed which distributes the word of God without cost. For another group to be formed to distribute the Bible without cost is a manifest dissatisfaction with the church as God gave it to man, according to some. But, what do we mean when we speak of the all-sufficiency of the church? Is the church all-sufficient to be a football team? Is the church all-sufficient to meet all of the benevolent needs of the entire world? Is the church all-sufficient to distribute the Bible? Just what do we mean when we speak of the all-sufficiency of the church?

When we speak of the all-sufficiency of the church, we simply mean that the local church is able to do whatever work God gave it to do. The local congregation is all-sufficient to evangelize a given community; the local church is all-sufficient to take care of its own benevolent needs (understood of course is the idea that one local church can help another local church relieve its needy) without organizing institutions to that work for them; the local church is all-sufficient to do its own edifying without the necessity of creating “edification societies” to which the local congregation sends a donation for that society to do its work for it.

However, does the statement that the church is all-sufficient to do its own work imply that no one else can do any of these works? Has a man denied the all-sufficiency of the church when he goes out to relieve a needy member of the body of Christ? Has a man denied the all-sufficiency of the church when he goes out to teach his neighbor? If not, why would we conclude that the all-sufficiency of the local church was denied if two men pooled their resources to do these same works? Yet, my brethren, some among us have concluded that men do not believe in the all-sufficiency of the church in the event that several of them pool their resources to conduct a tent meeting in an area which does not have a local church!

When such an event has happened, what part of the local church’s work has been said to be such that the local congregation is unable to discharge its work in that area! Have I stated that the local church of which I am a member is insufficient to do its work in evangelism if I start doing some work in evangelism myself? If not, why is the all-sufficiency of the church denied when several of us work together to accomplish this same purpose? When several men pool their resources to conduct a tent meeting somewhere, in what regard have they said that the local churches of which they are members respectively are insufficient to do their respective local works?

I know of an occasion in which a local church was burdened with supporting many gospel preachers when another preacher came requesting support to do work overseas. The elders looked at their budget and said that they were unable to help him at the present. One of the members of that local church opened a checking account for the preacher and put some money in it each month for him. Several others participated in this as well by giving him money to forward to this man. How does such an arrangement indict the all-sufficiency of the church?

The Local Congregation or the Church Universal?

Sometimes when brethren make their charges about certain works denying the all-sufficiency of the church, they manifest a certain attitude toward the given work that implies that the church universal is organizationally to be involved in a universal work. For example, brethren state that Florida College’s Bible Department is a denial of the all-sufficiency of the church. The fact that Florida College is preaching the gospel is somehow seen to be a denial of the all-sufficiency of the church in the fields of evangelism or edification. Similarly, when Cogdill Foundation sent tracts to some Filopinos several years ago, some brethren said that this manifested a denial of the all-sufficiency of the church to be the pillar and ground of the truth.

But, I ask, which local church’s work was Cogdill Foundation doing when we sent tracts to someone in the Philippines? Have the members of that local church repented for not doing that work? Similarly, which local church am I charging to be insufficient to do its local work when I believe that Florida College can conduct a lectureship or teach Bible classes? Please give me the name and address of the local church which I am saying that is insufficient to do its work when I state that these works can be done by these groups!

The fact of the matter is that these brethren shift to a universal usage of the word “church” when they speak about the alt-sufficiency of the church. Florida College denies the all-sufficiency of the universal church when it teaches the Bible; Cogdill Foundation in the Philippines. But where did God ever give the universal church any work to do?

Here is the dilemma of these brethren who so misunderstand the all-sufficiency of the church: (1) they have no name of a given local church which is being said to be in-sufficient to do its local work when such works are done by others and (2) they have no work given to the church universal which makes it possible for them to say that the work of the universal church is being denied when such works are performed by others.

The Church Is All-Sufficient To Do Its Work

The church is all-sufficient to do its work. It is not all-sufficient to do works that do not belong exclusively to the church. It is not all-sufficient to do works which God did not give it to do. What we mean by the all-sufficiency of the church is that the local congregation is fully capable to carry out the work which God gave it to do – it is capable to evangelize and edify; it is capable to meet its benevolent responsibilities without organizing human institutions to do those works for them.

When human institutions are organized and maintained without involvement in local church’s work, I do not see how they deny the all-sufficiency of the church. They are organized to do a work separate and apart from a local church’s work; they are supported without involvement of church funds; they are not organized to do the work of any given congregation; they are not overseen by any given congregation; they are not promoted by any given congregation; they are not attached formally or informally to any given church or churches. Consequently, on what basis can such organizations be considered to be a denial of the all-sufficiency of the church? The only way that I see that they could possibly be considered a denial of the all-sufficiency of the church would be to speak of the church’s work on universal terms, something which we have sought to avoid in all of our discussions on institutionalism and the sponsoring church.

These brethren charge the liberals with sin by “seeking to activate the church universal” in their building of human institutions. They then turn right around and use the premise of the activation of the church universal to oppose organizations such as Cogdill Foundation, Vanguard, and Florida College. They cannot have it both ways. They must either admit the right of the church universal to be activated, in which case they can use this argument to oppose Cogdill Foundation, Vanguard, Florida College, etc. but must quit using it against the liberals; or, they must deny that the church universal can be activated, in which case they cannot use this argument against the aforementioned organizations but can continue to use it to expose the heresy of the missionary society and the sponsoring church.

Indeed, some among us do misunderstand the all-sufficiency of the church. Some misunderstand it by building human institutions to do the work which God gave the local church to do. Others misunderstand the all-sufficiency of the church by reaching radical positions which deny that any human institution can distribute the gospel. The logical position to which these brethren are forced is to make the local church responsible for the sole distribution of God’s word. It is responsible for translating the word, printing the word, and distributing it without cost to any person. In the event that some human institution becomes involved in these activities, those institutions are to that degree sinful because they are doing the work of the church. Let us reconsider what we mean when we speak of the all-sufficiency of the church.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 9, pp. 147-149
March 1, 1979

By Bill Imrisek

A joke. It must be a joke. Tomorrow is Halloween. The Gospel Advocate and David Lipscomb College must be just trying to get into the spirit of the holiday. Let me read that again. Where are my glasses? Ah, let’s see.

The sports world has a Hall of Fame. Country music has a Hall of Fame located in Nashville, Tennessee. If people who pay the price to excel deserve recognition in the entertainment -and sports fields, how much more are good men who serve God faithfully deserving of recognition?

Plans are being finalized to establish a Hall of Faith in the William Anderson Preacher Training Center on the campus of David Lipscomb College.

This special hall will contain the pictures and biographical sketches of men who have faithfully proclaimed the gospel. Books, tracts and cassette copies of sermons and lectures will also be displayed.

Since it will be signal honor to be inducted into the Hall of Faith, proper press coverage will be given to each inductee.

The purpose of the Hall of Faith is: (1) to give honor to whom honor is due, and (2) to encourage young preachers by having examples of dedication and faithfulness for them to observe.

The name “Hall of Faith” was suggested by the editor of the Gospel Advocate, Brother Ira North.

The establishment of the “Hall of Faith” was approved by the June 3, 1978 meeting of the Lipscomb Board of Directors. The first inductee will probably come sometime in the fall of 1978.

Willard Collins said: “Faithful gospel preachers need to be recognized and encouraged. This will help to encourage young men to give their lives to the preaching of the word. I am happy that we can begin the Hall of Faith at David Lipscomb College” (Gospel Advocate, October 26, 1978).

Humorous indeed, if it wasn’t intended to be taken seriously. But at last, the church of Christ, a la David Lipscomb College, can begin canonizing their “saints.” Maybe it is the only logical move for a people who have lost their faith in the all-sufficiency of the word of God.

No one denies that young preachers need “examples of dedication and faithfulness for them to observe.” But what is wrong with the “examples of dedication and faithfulness” that God has given to us in the Scriptures? Are they not sufficient? Are the Scriptures no longer able to furnish us completely unto “every good work” (2 Tim. 3:17)?

Perhaps the truth is that such Biblical examples are outof-step with the kind of preacher that is needed if the church is going to be led where the Gospel Advocate and David Lipscomb College are attempting to lead the church. Can you imagine what might happen if today’s young preacher would emulate the “dedication and faithfulness” of Stephen and speak out with such boldness as to say, “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye.do always resist the Holy Spirit as your fathers did, so do ye. . .ye who received the. law as it was ordained by angels, kept it not” (Acts 7:51-53); or preach with the conviction of John, saying, “Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God” (2 John 9)? If a different type of preacher is needed today, then new examples for imitation are also needed, and David Lipscomb College will be happy to supply them.

But those who are satisfied with the message of the New Testament will also be satisfied with the ‘examples of the New Testament. Paul said, “Be ye imitators of me even as I am of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1). Either the examples of Jesus and His apostles are sufficient or we must renounce our disbelief in the all-sufficiency of the word of God. One wonders if Peter, Paul, James, John,Stephen, etc. will be inducted into the “Hall of Faith.” Will Paul’s “tracts” be placed alongside his picture? Or will they be allowed to gather dust between the covers of the Bible?

What alarms me most is that a board of men will have relegated to themselves, by the very act of selecting inductees into the Hall of Faith, the right to determine what is and what is not faithful gospel preaching. Such awesome power. They will be setting a standard for that segment of the church that falls under their influence. They will, in essence, be canonizing as truths all that was taught by the inductees in the “Hall of Faith.” Who would dare to rise up and challenge anything that was taught as truth by one of these men? To do so would be to deny that these men are examples of “faithfulness.” Knowing the error and false doctrine that have been endorsed by the Gospel Advocate and David Lipscomb College, one is left with little doubt as to the type of men that will be put forth as examples of “faithfulness” for tomorrow’s young preacher to imitate.

The next generation can look back upon these men and ask, “What did the church fathers teach?” Whereas authority used to be determined by (1) a direct scriptural statement, (2) an apostolic example, or (3) a necessary inference from God’s word, a fourth category can be added: the example and teaching of Hall of Faith inductees. The church of tomorrow will be able to fall in stride with the Roman Catholic Church and declare, “Our authority is derived not only from the Bible, but also from the tradition of the fathers.”

Other questions also arise. If this is to be called a “Hall of Faith,” why shall examples of faith be limited to “faithful gospel preachers”? Does no one else have a faith worth emulating? Would not a Dorcas have a faith worthy of imitation (Acts 9:36-41)? Could not a Mary such as the one of whom Jesus said, “Wheresoever the. gospel shall be preached throughout the world, that also which this woman hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her” (Mark 14:9), find a place in the “Hall of Faith”? Evidently not. Perhaps the Hall of Faith shall be outside that realm that Jesus described as “wheresoever the gospel shall be preached.”

Pity the generations that have gone before us who had to be satisfied with the examples of Abraham and Moses, Peter and Paul. I remember when Hebrews 11 was looked upon as a sort of “Hall of Faith.” Now this term will take on an entirely different meaning for me.

But one is left with little doubt as to what the apostle Paul would have said concerning such statements as “Faithful gospel preachers need to be recognized” and “It will be a signal honor to be inducted into the Hall of Faith.” I think I can hear him now. “With me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not myself; yet am I not justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. Wherefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who will both bring into light the hidden things of darkness and make manifest the counsels of the hearts; and then shall each man have his praise from God” (1 Cor. 4:3-5). “We are not bold to number or compare ourselves with certain of them that commend themselves; but they themselves, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves with themselves with themselves, are without understanding. . .for not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth” (2 Cor. 10:12, 18).

I believe that Paul would have rather heard his Lord say, “Well done, good and faithful servant. . .enter into the joy of thy Lord” (Matt. 25:21), than to hear the board of directors of David Lipscomb College say, “Well done, good and faithful servant. . .enter into our Hall of Faith.”

But maybe I am just being driven by a blind zeal for truth. Maybe I just have not considered all the benefits that this Hall of Faith can bring to the church. Come to think of it, I have thought it to be quite unfair, all this press coverage that the Catholic church has been receiving lately, having lost two popes and having to select two new ones in the same year. Maybe this is our chance. Maybe we can get the attention of the world presses. Just think about it. As the tension and excitement builds up, the board could enter into a secret conclave behind sealed doors in the Vatican-oops, I mean Nashville-to deliberate and decide who would be the next inductee into the Hall of Faith. And when the decision was finally reached, the conclave could send up a cloud of white smoke, signifying to the awaited world that the churches of Christ now have a new inductee into the Hall of Faith. Pandemonium would break out in the streets. . .

Truth Magazine XXIII: 9, pp. 146, 155
March 1, 1979

By Wallace H. Little

In the U.S. today, we do not talk of the “average American;” there is no such person. In our nation, which has been proclaimed as a mixing bowl of all races and cultures, we are basically divided geographically (Northeast, South, Midwest, Southwest, West Coast, and North West). There are finer sub-gradations, but these are the basic ones. Although there are some divisive elements which have been introduced, we are actually a rather homogeneous people, all things considered. My comparison is with other nations. We talk about “minority-this” and “minority-that” but, even considering these distinctions, the differences are not really great. We speak a common language and imbibe a common culture (whether each approves of all parts of it or not is not the point). Yet, we recognize that even with this relatively bland situation, there still is no such thing as the “average American.”

How much more so is the term and idea of the “average Filipino” a misnomer! It is important to remember that culture is the cause and language is the effect. A culture develops and grows, and language is adjusted to reflect the changes and growth of this culture. The greater the growth, the greater the language adjustment. Well, the Philippine nations has 116 major and minor recorded dialects and, when you consider all variations, the sum jumps to more than 1000. Yes, that is right: over a thousand! Now, by dialects, I am not talking about what we might have in mind when we speak of the clipped Yankee speech or the southern drawl. These are not even minor variations. I am talking about languages which are sufficiently distinct that unless somehow trained in them, the hearer cannot understand the speaker. One consequence of this diversity is that relatives in adjacent sub-provinces many times are unable to communicate with each other, except in English. Today, English is the only language common to all that nation. Most people understand enough to be able to get along, but their daily activities are conducted in whatever happens to be their native dialects. In the schools today, at all levels, Tagalog (which with Ilocano and Cebuano, is one of the three major dialects) is required study. In a generation, the Philippines will be a bilingual nation, with English and Tagalog sharing the spotlight. But we are not dealing with a generation away; we are trying to save souls now. I will say more on this problem in conversion, and how it might be hand-led in a later article.

Since language reflects culture and culture is made up of traditions, family practices ad-mixed with whatever religious beliefs and practices exist among the people, it might be useful to comment on some of these things here.

The Filipino cultures share common points, of course. One of these is their love of feasts and holidays. For example, they have the longest Christmas season of any nation I know of. It begins on 16 December and continues on through the first Sunday in January. It involves a great deal more than ours. It is not stripped of its religious activities and significance, which is generally the situation in the U.S. It is a near-endless series of feasts, modified nativity scenes to reflect the Filipino influence and giving of gifts. Anther: on the third weekend in January, there is the “At-Atihan,” a feast which resembles our own “Mardi-gras” more than anything else. later comes the Chinese New Year for those of Chinese extraction, a movable feast according to the Chinese calendar. And so it goes throughout the years, not only for the polygot people we call the Filipino, but also for each group which has maintained its separate ethnic identity.

Marriage customs, however, differ almost as much as the tribes where they are practiced. One tradition is that for three days after the marriage, the husband and wife sleep apart and do not touch each other. The opposite is the custom of another tribe: the boy and the girl begin sleeping together and continue to do so until she becomes pregnant, to prove she can produce an heir. Then they marry. Without trying in any way to defend immorality, it might be worth considering the consequences of religionists, to do away with this practice: the rate of children born out of wedlock among members of this tribe has gone from nothing to startlingly close to the percentage existing in the rest of that society – and ours.

Another custom of interest, particularly to folks like me who were raised up to believe you ought to be able to tell the boys from the girls at a glance: there is some compromise, of course, but the all-too-common tendency elsewhere for girls and boys to dress alike is virtually nonexistent there. One young (30 year old) preacher of my acquaintance, married and with three children, living apart from his parents, still wears his hair short. His non-Christian associates all wear theirs- longer, although nothing like some of the “horrible examples” in the U.S. 1 asked him if he did not like these new styles of wearing his hair somewhat longer. He said he did, and would like to wear his about like his friends. So I asked him why he did not do so: his reply: “Because I know my father would not like it.” 1 am not sitting in judgment of hair-length; 1 am commending the attitude of still trying to please a father years after having left his home and board. We might import a few gallons of that in the U.S.!

Both custom and law decree a woman cannot marry without her father’s permission until she is 25; with a man the age is 26. I have run into two schools of thought on this; those in my age group sigh, and say, “How nice if we had that in the U.S.” For the Filipino, especially the young people, it is something else again. Those who are determined to have each other have their own “solution” – they “elope.” That does not mean what it does here. In the P.O., it means slipping away and living together, sans marriage. I have known parents, Christians, to block marriage of their children even after the couple has lived together for some time. In one instance, permission to marry was granted only weeks before the baby was due. However, the general response is not this. Usually, the young people submit, but with less grace than their fathers might want.

Another custom deals with divorce, in a nation which has no divorce (Roman Catholic influence). If a man or woman deserts the mate, the remaining partner may simply find another, and take up with him/her. After seven years, that individual may go to court and have the first partner declared dead. This loosens the petitioner from any further legal responsibility.

Communications are difficult sometimes. American English is thoroughly idiomatic. We give little thought to how great a portion of figurative language we have laced into our daily conversation. I am not talking about slang expressions, or those which reflect a sub-culture of our own people. I refer to daily, common use of expressions, phrases, clauses and even whole sentences which in their figurative meaning have become so common that we normally accept the idiomatic meaning rather than the literal. One example: when we say, “so-and-so is separated from his wife” we understand the speaker to say the two have or are in the process of breaking up their marriage. Not so in the Philippines. They would understand it to mean simply that at that particular moment, for whatever the reason, the husband and wife were physically separated – in different geographical locations. The implication of such differences are immense. Unless we exercise extreme care, these can easily create bizarre and disastrous results. Indeed, such have happened in misunderstood conversations between Filipino and American brethren.

It is also characteristic of the Filipino to answer a question precisely as it is asked. Possibly this stems from their more literal understanding of language. Whatever, it can and has caused problems between supported Filpino preachers and the American church or churches assisting him. Examples: one congregation wrote the man it supported asking how much additional support he was receiving from other U.S. churches. In his response, he provided exactly the information they requested – and not one bit more. Later, these brethren found he was also receiving additional support from an individual saint and they were very irate. They contacted me and wanted to know why I had recommended him to them when the man was an obvious liar. It took some careful explaining to get them to understand that he had not lied at all, nor in any way had attempted to deceive them. An American would have understood the scope of the question to include all support, but the Filipino reads it as asking only what was explicitly stated. Problems? You bet!

One custom of interest is worthwhile explaining here. Traditionally among some tribes, the women handle the money of the family. The man often has little idea how it is spent and even less of how much is really needed. So the wife tells him the support is inadequate, and he writes to the supporting brethren asking for more, and they become upset when they contact one of us who have been there and we assure them that the support he is presently receiving is entirely adequate. Result? Suspicion as to the man’s integrity and honesty.

Disagreements and problems among brethren there often occur as a result of their basic cultural differences. A misunderstanding with one in a family, barrio or tribe is of much less importance than the same difference between individuals of two different tribes. The tribal differences will automatically elevate and intensify the problem. If two men are equally capable and have both demonstrated an equal zeal in service, and both are recommended for support, the brother with the closest blood ties will receive the stronger recommendation. If the ties are close enough, the man doing the recommending might even “condemn by faint praise” the non-relative to insure the one with the closer family ties to him receives the greater consideration. Unfair? Not by their culture.

As here, there are individuals who are dishonest, or are tempted and turn so over the prospect of obtaining support. These are not the majority of the preaching brethren, either here in the U.S. nor there in the Philippines. We accord U.S. brethren the benefit of doubt; why not be as fair to our Filipino brethren? From time to time, the dishonesty of those who have made godliness a way of gain will be brought to light. Then let us not lose faith in the other, realizing that we are dealing with fallible humans there, just as we also are here at home.

To me, one of the most surprising and upsetting things that happens is when a dishonest man is exposed. Often his reaction is anger and in some instances, violence or the threat of it against those he believe “blew the whistle” on him. It may go far beyond simply trying to defend himself against what he claims are false charges. In earlier years, there have been several planned attempts by such men to hurt or ruin the reputation of those who have exposed their sins, including the threat of personal injury. Such threats are sometimes carried out. Presently, one man in his anger at the exposure of his dishonest activities, has filed court cases against those he believes exposed him. He has made publically witnessed threats against them and others. He has tried to ruin the moral reputation of a Christian lady. He has vowed to ruin all the churches of Christ in the Philippines if necessary to “get even” with those he believes cut off his support. Such a reaction seems out of proportion to the situation, unless we understand he was preaching only because this was a “good job” to him. He sees only the loss of his income and fails to see the potential loss of his soul, and others he influences. So he fights for “his job.”

The “eternal triangle” has its ramifications in’ the Philippines. In some cultures there, a spurned suitor will kidnap the girl who rejected him, then rape her. The idea is that once she has been humbled by him, she will quietly marry him rather than see her reputation smeared by bringing him to court. I wonder how many of us would sit still if a man would do that to our daughters? They do not like it much either.

The Filipino is hospitable beyond any others I have ever known on God’s earth. He may not have much, but he wants to share it with you. You may offend him if you do not accept it. Do not go into their houses and admire anything; you will probably walk home with it under your arm, wondering what happened. Their concept of hospitality dictates that they do not have a disagreement with a guest. On the other hand, once you have become their friend, they may have a great number of noisy disagreements with you, but do not become angry, because friends do not become angry at each other. Some Americans, accustomed to our standard of living, complained at what they were offered there. That was a mistake of major importance. The Filipino host offered the best he had or had access to. Appreciate it, for he is putting himself out to do this for you; he may even have gone into debt to do this for you. This includes a place to sleep, the food he puts before you and everything else. Americans can, and have, worn out their welcome by complaining.

Our final point: this is not so much a matter of culture but a reflection of our 50 years as rulers of the Philippine Islands. It is a sad commentary on our colonial rule that more often than not, the decisions of our government officials and the Congress reflected American business interests. If this happened to affect the Philippine economy adversely, and thus the well-being of the people, well, that was just too bad. The result today is a deep government-to-government distrust. On the other hand, because of extensive personal contacts between individual Americans and Filipinos, there is a near-universal personal liking of Americans by Filipinos as individuals. American Christians can build on this, to the name of God and His glory and honor. We can also, if we are careless and inconsiderate in our treatment of brethren there, tear down a lot of good which has already been accomplished. Basically, we need to be sure we treat our brethren as equals in the kingdom of God. Anything less than that will develop and build resentment in them against us. In their position, would we feel any different?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 8, pp. 138-140
February 22, 1979