Truth Magazine

By Harold Hancock

Most of us do some good works, but how many of us are good work conscious? To be good work conscious is to be aware of the many opportunities about us to do good. The Old Testament speaks of some who would lie upon their beds at night and think of evil to do. We need to think of good to do.

Good works are to characterize God’s people. Jesus “gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people zealous of good works” (Tit. 2:14). “Zealous” means “eager interest and enthusiasm.” God’s people should be looking for good to do, not just waiting for it. Who is known for good works in your town?

Good works are our purpose for existing in Christ Jesus. “For by grace ye are saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:8-10). Goodness does not save; we are saved to do good! This is our purpose of life as a Christian. This is what we need to be doing the most of. A machine that does not do what it is suppose to do is not any good. Salt that loses its savor is to be cast out.

Good works are a part of pure religion undefiled. “Pure religion and undefiled before the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their afflictions, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world” (Jas. 1:27). All would admit that visiting the fatherless and widows are good works, would they not? The point of James is doing. The person who has pure religion is a Christian doing good works. Good works also shows our faith. Jas. 2:14-18 speaks of feeding the hungry and clothing the naked. He speaks of faith and works. James was not trying to persuade someone to be baptized. James was writing to Christians. His point was that by doing these good works, and not just talking about them, we show our faith. Faith without works is dead. Have you a faith that is alive and that can be seen?

We glorify God with good works. “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify the Father” (Mt. 5:16). Ben Franklin persuaded the city of Philadelphia to install street lights by first letting them see the warm, friendly glow in his own yard. We can get people to listen to the Gospel by letting them see a warmth of good radiating from us. Here we are face to face with the real reason for good works on the part of Christians – to honor God and to further His cause.

Some would do good works, but they have no time. Their time is consumed by other things. They are choked by the riches and cares and pleasures of this world. They bring forth no fruit unto perfection (Lk. 8:7, 14). Could it be that many need to weed their gardens? Others begin but grow slack. I remember how one young lady would sometimes call our home looking for something to do in, the name of the Lord, but she soon lost her zeal. “Let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not” (Gal. 6:9).

The Lord’s church needs some good Samaritans to turn aside and show interest in others (Lk. 10:30-37). It needs some who are like Dorcas (Acts 9). It needs men full of exhortation and forgiveness like Barnabas. There is plenty of room for some mothers like the mother of Mark, who opened her home unto prayer (Acts 12). We need some couples like Aquila and Priscilla who will teach others (Acts 18).

Jesus stands at the end of life to say, “I know thy works.” He will know if they be few or many. He will not forget what good we do (Heb. 6:10). Someone said, “My religion is to do good.” Goodness alone cannot save (Eph. 2:8); but for the Christian the statement may be nearer right than some suspect. Join the brigade of do-gooders. Be good work conscious.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 7, p. 124
February 15, 1979

By Larry Ray Hafley

Not much of a bead needs to be drawn on the letter from Bib Rigdon which appears below. It looks like a clear case of a self inflicted bullet wound. However, there is no use in watching the wounded suffer. Therefore, after the letter is read,- a quick shot or two may put the error out of its misery. If not, perhaps some misery can be given to the error.

“Dear Christian Friends:

“To my dismay, on August 17, I was suddenly notified that the unoccupied minister’s house in Cherokee, NC, had burned during the night . . . .

“This tragedy occurred while plans were underway for the arrival of a new minister . . . .

“The elders of the Concord Road Church of Christ, Brentwood, TN, have the oversight of this mission congregation, and they have requested that I look after the work since I am located only 13 miles from the Reservation . . . .

“The replacement cost is $38,000. The Indian members are barely able to meet the operating expenses of the church. We need your help. If every congregation contacted will give something, we can rebuild this house, which is a vital facility for effectively carrying on the Cherokee work . . . .”

Of course, no one is opposed to a preacher’s home. Every preacher should have one. Obviously, everyone is sorry for the tragic fire. If someone is mean enough to believe that we are not in sympathy regarding the situation, they need more help than we can provide.

With that aside, how can any Christian, even one with just a smattering of knowledge about the work and organization of the local congregation, fail to be shocked and appalled by the statement: “The elders of the Concord Road Church of Christ, Brentwood, Tennessee, have the oversight of this mission congregation?” The worst thing I could do with a statement like that is to quote Acts 20:28; 14:23; and 1 Peter 5:2. Reading those verses would be cruel, if not brutal. Imagine talking about “elders in every church” “taking the oversight” of “the flock of God which is among you” after Brother Rigdon has said that the “elders of the Concord Road Church . . . have the oversight of this mission congregation.” It would be just too unkind to bring up those Scriptures in view of his remarks, so, I shall not even so much as mention them.

What are the scriptural qualifications of a “mission congregation”? Who determines which church shall assume the oversight of “mission” congregations? What happens when a “mission congregation” decides that it does not desire the “oversight” of another church? Is there an example of a “mission congregation” in the New Testament; if so, what church had “the oversight” of it?

The denominations, especially the Baptists, have for years talked about “mission points,” or groups that are too small to be fully organized as churches. But anyone who claims to be a member of the church of the Lord and speaks of such things is a “mission point” in and of himself.

In the last paragraph quoted above, Rigdon realizes that the “Indian members” constitute the church, for he says they “are barely able to meet the operating expenses of the church.” Thus, the “elders of the Concord Road Church of Christ . . . have the oversight” of another “church.” Really, if I were not in such a good mood, I would be sorely and severely tempted to quote every word in Acts 14:23; 20:28; and 1 Peter 5:2.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 7, p. 123
February 15, 1979

By Bill Imrisek

We continue our investigation into various elements of the Roman Catholic religion to learn upon which foundation it is built, the apostolic foundation or another.

Pouring of Water for Baptist Not Apostolic

Let’s attempt to understand what “baptism” consists of from the viewpoint of Catholicism.

In Roman Catholicism, baptism is administered by the pouring of water on the head and the use of the formula, “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (The Roman Catholic Church, John L. McKenzie, p. 176).

Once again, though, McKenzie shows that the apostolic practice differed considerably from their present practice.

The rite of infusion does not enjoy the same antiquity; and the Roman Catholics here find themselves confronted by several Protestant churches which maintain that immersion, the only rite attested for early Christian centuries, is the only valid rite. The Roman Church has certainly modified the rite in this respect (McKenzie, p. 176).

And who gave them the right to change this element of the apostolic foundation? Again, we have a case of man substituting his will for the will of God.

The truth that baptism is immersion is partially obscured by the fact that the word “baptism,” as it appears in the translations of our Bible, is not an actual translation of the Greek text, but rather a transliteration (a carry over, letter for letter) of a Greek word into the English language. As such, it is meaningless except as defined by usage.

The Greek word, baptisma, is defined as “consisting of the process of immersion, submersion and emergence (from bapto, to dip)” (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, W.E. Vine, p. 96). However it is not necessary to obtain a knowledge of the Greek language in order to learn what baptism actually is. This knowledge can be gleaned by observing its usage in the scriptures. By such a method we can learn the following.

(1)Baptism is necessary in order to be saved (to obtain the remission of sins) – Matt. 28:19-20; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 1 Pet. 3:21.

(2)Baptism requires the presence of “much water” (John 3:23).

(3)Baptism involves going down into the water and coming up out of the water (Acts 8:38-39).

(4)Baptism is described as a burial (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12).

The only action which can meet all these requirements is immersion. This was the practice of the apostles, and such is admitted by the Catholic Church. Thus, pouring of water for baptism is not apostolic.

Infant Baptism Is Not Apostolic

It is the practice of Roman Catholicism to “baptize” children in infancy. But again this is admitted by them to be a post-apostolic development.

The Roman practice of infant baptism has been a point of contention between Romans and some Protestants since the Reformation. Here also the Protestants seem to have antiquity on their side; not only the New Testament but also the catechetical homilies of the fathers of the church presuppose adult candidates (McKenzie, p. 177).

And so another stone in the foundation or Roman Catholicism is found displaced.

Infant baptism was not the practice in New Testament times for a very good reason – they did not believe the doctrine which teaches that a child is born with the guilt of sin. Since an infant does not have sins to be washed away, he does not have to be baptized. The doctrine of original sin is another invention of the Catholic Church, and one which contradicts the plain teaching of Scripture, “The son shall not be charged with guilt of his father, nor shall the father be charged with the guilt of the son. The virtuous man’s virtue shall be his own, as the wicked man’s wickedness shall be his” (Ezek. 18:20). If the guilt of a father’s transgression cannot be transferred to his son, then neither can the guilt of Adam’s sin be transferred to his posterity.

As McKenzie, the Roman Catholic authority whom we have been quoting, states, the Bible presupposes adult candidates for baptism. Baptism is a command to be obeyed, not merely a ceremony to undergo, by those who are capable of being taught and capable of expressing faith in God and repentance for their sins (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38; Heb. 11:6). The conclusion of all this is that those who were simply “baptized” as infants have not been scripturally baptized. If they have not been immersed into Jesus Christ, after having believed in Him, they have not been baptized and are still in their sins. They still need to make themselves right with God.

By their own admission, the Catholic Church has changed the form of doctrine delivered to us by Jesus and his apostles. Let us not be guilty of transgressing the commandments of God for the sake of man-made doctrines and traditions (Matt. 15:9).

Instrumental Music in Worship Is Not Apostolic

A practice introduced by Roman Catholics and adopted later by most Protestant churches is the use of instruments of music in the worship of the church. But this practice cannot be traced back to apostolic origins. A cathechism of the Catholic Church tells us the following.

For the earthly-minded Jews instrumental music was necessary on account of their weakness; for only through the pleasures of their senses could they be stimulated to strive after nobler aims. In the early days of Christianity no instrumental music was heard at the time of divine worship, for the Christians would not have their prayers mingle with the notes of instruments which were associated with pagan dances and idolatrous ceremonies. Organs were first used in churches in the eighth century (The Catechism Explained, Spirago & Clarke, p. 568).

It takes very little reasoning to realize that what began eight centuries after Christ cannot be considered apostolic.

Indeed, New Testament Christians lifted their voices in praise to God, making melody in their hearts (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). But their voices were not mingled with the sound of musical instruments. It was not that such instruments were not available to them, but that such had not been commanded of them by the Lord. And so Christians today who worship God “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24) refuse to transgress what has been revealed in the Scriptures (1 Cor. 4:6) by going beyond those things taught to us by Jesus and his apostles. “Anyone who advances and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ, has not God” (2 John 9). The use of instrumental music in worship is an addition to the divine foundation, and thus is not apostolic. Once again the Roman Catholic Church confesses that it is built upon a different foundation.

Deny the Apostolic Belief in the Completeness of Scripture

Paul expresses for us the apostolic belief in the completeness of scripture. He says, “Thou hast known the Sacred Writings which are able to instruct thee unto salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instructing in justice; that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:15-17). One would expect that a church that claims to be apostolic would concur with what is here stated by an apostle of the Lord, that through the Scriptures we may be “perfect, equipped for every good work.” But the Catholic Church denies the completeness of the Scriptures.

A rule of faith, or a competent guide to heaven, must be able to instruct in all the truths necessary for salvation. Now the scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe, nor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to practice (The Faith of our Fathers, James Gibbons, p. 72).

And so, although Paul says that the Scriptures are “able to instruct you to salvation,” the Catholic Church says the Scriptures “do not contain all the truths” and fail to be a “competent guide to heaven.” And although Paul says that the Scriptures will equip one for “every good work,” the Catholic Church says, “Nor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to practice.”

McKenzie expresses the Catholic view that truth is to be found not only in the Scriptures, but also in Roman tradition.

The Council of Trent admitted frankly that the Roman tradition contains propositions which cannot be found in the Bible. It countered the Protestant charge by asserting itself, so to speak; it denied that either in the Bible or in its own traditions is there any affirmation that the Bible is the sole source of revealed truth. It appealed to the historic behavior of the Roman Church from apostolic times and equivalently said that the Roman Church confirmed itself by its very reality. The divine truths are contained in scripture and tradition, and they have always been found there (McKenzie, p. 266).

To sum it up, he says,

The Bible is superior in dignity, but tradition is superior in completeness (McKenzie, p. 266)

And just what is “tradition”?

Tradition, as content, then, is simply the body of Roman Catholic belief taught by the teaching authority (McKenzie, p. 266).

Thus, whatever the Catholic Church has taught in the past or chooses to teach in the future becomes part of its “tradition.”

And just how “complete” is the tradition of the Catholic Church? Well, evidently not complete enough to be free from error.

In general Roman Catholics are expected to accept the teaching authority of the Roman Church because it is a safe guide, even if it is not perfectly free from error and because in the critical areas of faith and morals it will not fail them. There is no other guide to whom they can turn, and they are not personally responsible if they submit to the church, even when in a particular case the position of the church could change (McKenzie, p. 261).

Can you hear that? The church can propagate error, but you will;not be damned for believing it because “they are not personally responsible if they submit to the church.” Jesus may as well step down. He did not have to suffer and die. Jesus is no longer the Saviour of the church; the church is its own saviour. Who can believe it? Jesus said, “If a blind man guide a blind man, both fall into a pit” (Matt. 15:14). Can we follow one who teaches error and still be saved? The Catholic Church occupies totally different ground than the apostles concerning the completeness of the Scriptures. They are built upon another foundation.

Roman Catholic Church Built on Human Institutions and Pagan Traditions

Despite their claim to be apostolic and of divine origin, they admit that their church is built upon something other than a divine foundation.

Our Church is a spiritual kingdom, indeed, but it is a human society as well. Even considered as a mere worldly institution, it is a truly remarkable example of efficiency and orderly development. No other society on earth is so well organized – so well adapted to its work. Some of the parts of the governmental system of the Catholic Church are of Divine origin; many of them are human institutions (The Externals of the Catholic Church, John F. Sullivan, pp. 18-19).

And yet they claim to be the church of God. They believe that they have arrived at the perfect institution by mingling the divine with the human, the sacred with the profane. Their admission that parts of their system are divine (which they would be hard pressed to prove) and parts are human is a tacit acknowledgement that they are not the church of Christ. “For other foundation no one can lay, but that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. 3:11).

Likewise, the Catholic Church has derived many of her practices and ceremonies, not from the book of God, but from the rites of paganism.

And because a religious practice happened to be of Jewish origin or had been used in the rites of paganism, the Church does not look upon it as something to be necessarily condemned or forbidden. She has taken some of the details of her liturgy not only from the ceremonial law of Moses, but even from pagan worship (Sullivan, p. 211).

How different are the teachings of the apostle Paul from the practices of the Roman Catholic Church. He says, “Do not bear the yoke with unbelievers. For what has justice in common with iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what part has the believer with the unbeliever?

And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God . . . . Wherefore, come out from among them and being separated, the Catholic Church has walked into the pagan temples, sat down next to them, accepted their worship, and now is trying to pass this off on the world as being the truth of God.

Conclusion

The Catholic Church cannot support its, own claim of being an apostolic church. By its own admission, it is built upon a foundation mixed with human wisdom, pagan tradition, departures from the divine foundation, and beliefs formulated centuries after the foundation was first laid by the apostles. They claim to be apostolic, bur their claim is a fraud, their own testimony bearing witness.

The claims of the Roman Catholic Church to be the one church founded by Jesus Christ have been tested and have been found wanting. This is not to deny that Jesus has only one church. But it is to deny that the Catholic Church is that one church. The origins of Catholicism are found among post-apostolic departures from the faith, manmade creeds, doctrines and traditions, Jewish ceremonialism, and pagan worship. But the origins of Christ’s church are found in the word of God, the Holy Scriptures.

The church of Christ is built upon the foundation laid by the apostles and prophets (Eph. 2;2o, Christ alone is its head (Eph. 1:22-23), His word alone its rule of faith (Rom. 10:17). Jesus founded only one, church. We can learn about it in the Holy Scriptures, and understand what Jesus desires His church to be like. The church of Christ follows this pattern. It is His church because it follows what He teaches.

We do not encourage you to become a Catholic, because Jesus never instituted the Catholic Church. But neither do we suggest that you become a Protestant, because Jesus also never instituted a Protestant church. Every Protestant denomination has had its beginning in the past 500 years. But the church of Christ began over 1900 years ago. Thus, we urge you to become neither a Protestant nor a Catholic, but to become a Christian, and in so doing become a member of Christ’s one church. As you repent and are baptized God will forgive you of your sins and add you to His church (Acts 2:38, 47). Come out of the realm of darkness and into the light of God’s kingdom.

Bibliography

St. Joseph Edition of the Holy Bible (Confraternity Version). New York: Catholic Book Publishing Company, 1963.

John Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers. New York: P.J. Kennedy & Sons, 1917.

John L. McKenzie, The Roman Catholic Church. Garden City: Image Books (A Division of Doubleday & Co. Inc.), 1971.

Hugh J. O’Connell, ed., What Every Catholic Should Know. Ligouri, Missouri: Redemptorist Fathers, 1961.

Francis Spirago (Richard F. Clarke, ed.), The Catechism Explained. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1927.

Maxwell Stanishforth, trans., Early Christian Writings. Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1972.

John F. Sullivan, The Externals of the Catholic Church. New York: P.J. Kennedy & Sons, 1942.

W.E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1966.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 7, pp. 120-122
February 15, 1979

By Wallace H. Little

We try to understand God’s people in another nation, and in doing so we come face to face with something which is different, and we are “turned off.” This has happened to Americans in virtually every country where we have tried to take the gospel. The result is a reduction of the work and discouragement of those doing it. It has taken place in the Philippines, also. I propose to examine the situation today along with the background of the Filipino people in order to build understanding in the hearts of U.S. saints toward the work there, those doing it and the saints there in general, that the Lord’s church might grow. This series is broken down by general subject matter.

Philippines: Salvation and Economics

Before the advent of the Spanish in the Philippine Islands, the people were neither rich nor poor. There were notable exceptions in both directions, such as those directly trading with men in ships from other areas, the ethnic minorities hidden from the main stream of life. But basically, the people were farmers, raising what they needed to sustain themselves. There was little of what we know as private property. Each man built his own place of abode, and farmed part of the common land around the barrio (village). He farmed what he could without interference. Others also selected the amount of land they wanted to farm, and likewise did so. With hand tools and a farm animal, the carabao, a hard working man could provide for himself and his family, and have some small amount left over to be used for exchange in the barrio markets. Also, the people made maximum use of materials native to the area. That is still true today. Their resourcefulness is shown in the many ways they use such plants as bamboo, bananas, coconuts, cogon grass and nipa palms. For example, the banana provides a great deal. Its leaves used whole serve as cloths on their rough tables and, cut across into sections approximately 12″ in width, as plates for eating; during the rainy season, the long leaves serve effective, as umbrellas; and in the intense sun, as parasols. They even eat the fruit. There are other uses made of this plant, but I am sure the reader can begin now to appreciate its utility and the ingenuity of the Filipino in his use of it. So also with other plants. Cogon grass and nipa palm leaves become roofs for their houses. True, these will not stand up too well in a typhoon, but then, they can be completely replaced in a matter of a few hours.

In bygone centuries, certain men in each barrio, by virtue of their age, experience and demonstrated wisdom came to be accepted as the principalia (principal men of the village). This was, sort of an ex-officio position: no compensation, no real authority-but by common consent, these were the ones looked to for guidance, assistance and settling disputes. When the Spanish conquerors arrived, they dealt with the principalia as if these were men in authority. For example, the Spanish acted as if the principalia functioned as trustees of the common lands around each barrio. By trickery, bribery and coercion, the Spanish nobility acquired more and more land as their private property. The military authorities also permitted the Roman Catholic bishops to do the same thing. The land acquisition covered several centuries. The multiplicity of armed rebellions by the Filipinos indicated they were something less than pleased with this theft of their land. But blow guns, bow and arrow and bolo are pretty ineffective against guns, so the Filipinos lost. In the end, a large portion of the land outside the barrios was “legally” the possession of the Spanish nobility and Roman bishops. Huge tracts of it were taken out of production. In other portions, the previous farmers continued to farm it, but now in tenant-farmer status, with a sizable portion of the crop going to the “owners.” In the end, the Spanish and Roman bishops became richer and richer while the people became poorer and poorer. Today, we have a nation of some 53,000,000 souls living on 29,000,00 hectares of land, a good portion of which is not usable for agriculture even if it were not in someone else’s hands. This figure includes rivers, lakes, mountaintops and rocky outcrops which are counted as part of the “Philippine Islands.” Actually, only about 300 of the islands are habitable. As a consequence, in some of the larger cities, the density of population is greater than in Tokyo.

The present poverty exists primarily for these two reasons. Let it be said of President Marcos and those who preceded him; while they recognized the problem and know the solution, it takes a great deal of backbone and political strength to oppose such an intrenched system. This strength was not always available. President-Prime Minister Marcos has succeded in breaking up many of the private land holdings which came down from the Spanish nobility – with compensation, of course. Over a period of years, these are being purchased by the ones who farm them. The results of this can already be seen in that there are indeed bright spots in the Philippine economy. But the great land holdings of the Roman Catholic Church remains virtually untouched, and until these are expropriated, the Filipino will continue to be poor. All the wishful thinking on our part (“after ten years or so, a church ought to be self-supporting”) will not change that fact. Until the Roman Catholic Church is divested of its land holdings, and the land is permitted to become again the property or the farmers, the Philippine economy is going to be hobbled and walking on one leg. One of the consequences we as saints in the U.S. need to consider is that until such a time, the dependance upon support from the U.S. will remain much as it is, or increase. I cannot foresee more than a small handful of churches becoming self-supporting in this generation.

In spite of being tabbed a dictator, what Mr. Marcos has done is little less than remarkable. In the past five years, he has practically built a tourist industry from nothing. It brings in large sums of badly needed funds. These purchase the petroleum needed so commerce and industry can continue to grow and develop. These also purchase equipment and facilities crucial to continued development. It is true, a good portion of that development is centered in and around Manila, while the remainder of the nation shares in the other half. This is very disproportionate. Yet Manila remains the source of attraction for the tourist income; without Manila, the “other half” would not even exist to be shared. One interesting aspect of this is that inflation in Manila is much greater than in the rest of that country, and consequently, a preacher there who was adequately supported last year may be in real trouble meeting his obligations today.

The contrast in that nation between what it was while I was stationed there in the mid-1960’s and now is startling. The cities are clean, and in many cases, more so than ours. In 1966, you would wade in trash no matter where you went. Now, the women are safe on the streets at night, and the men do not have to carry guns. Martial law did that. Before we become too critical, we had best tak with some of the people there, to find out what they think. Americans often criticize Mr. Marcos because the Philippine government, with 50 years of our colonialism and 30 years of independence has not achieved the U.S. goal of personal individual freedom. Well, we had 200 years of colonialism and another 200 years of independence and we still have not gotten there either! When we level such criticism at the Philippine Government, we are either displaying our ignorance or hypocrisy. Neither is the basis of much boasting. In all my time there, and with the hundreds with whom I have discussed this, I have not heard so much as one word of bitter criticism of Marcos and his martial law. Griping, yea; serious criticism, no. And incidentally, this is not because their law is oppressive. About anyone there criticizes about anything he or she wants to as often as they want and by whatever means they want to. There is no nation in Asia where speech is so free and unhindered.

The general condition of economics has produced a nation where there are a few thousand very rich, a growing but still very small middle class, but with the preponderance of the population very, very poor. Even in the middle class, things are not all that bright. For example, except in the cities, a school teacher will take home about $45.00 per month. In most cases, there is no way he and his family can live on that income. To supplement it, many grow some of their own food, work at a second job, or have a wife who works, or perhaps several of these alternatives. Not a few work in the rice paddies to raise their own primary staple. United States brethren have asked why cannot each in a congregation contribute a tenth of their income, and when a congregation gets ten wage earners in it, the preacher then would be receiving the average wage of the members there. True, but he would still have to do as the other families, and get out and spend another four to six hours a day to grow his food, or work at a second job. When would he teach?

The Filipino looks on Americans as if all are rich – and no wonder! By his standards and understanding, he sees only two things: the difference in income and the very great disparity of living style between U.S. citizens and himself. So he figures that if the American would only cut down a little, perhaps take $100.00 out of his $1000.00 plus monthly income, each American Christian could support a Filipino preacher by himself. Trying to dispel this misconception has proved frustrating. I have not succeeded in twelve years. It also explains why many there will constantly write and ask for more and more. They see nothing wrong with that. Besides, as I said, all Americans are rich – aren’t we?

The fact the preachers there do sometimes receive a level of support generally somewhat higher than the people among whom they work has been criticized here in the U.S. from time to time. I have already explained part of it – that the wages from jobs provide only a portion of their needs. The preachers must make up this difference in outside support. Additionally, most of the churches there meet in someone’s house, usually the preacher’s. His income must be sufficient to pay the additional rent this requires. Next, most of the supported preachers work with two and sometimes three congregations. Hence, they have a need for additional income for the travel expenses involved. These are not unsubstantial by their standards.

An interesting, frustrating and troublesome side effect of this higher income is that it attracts those who look at preaching as if it is a “good job,” and only that. These will learn the “qualifications”: (1) permit themselves to be “taught” the gospel and “respond” to it in baptism; (2) spend several years in a “zealous activity” (usually helping the one who “converted” them); and (3) getting this one’s recommendation for support. If supported, it becomes a job. And for a time, these will work at it. But when the going gets rough, which it always does in preaching, they fade. The difficulty is discovering motives and observing enough conduct to be sure who are the “time servers.” Because so few Americans have been there, and the distance is so great, detection takes a long time. by then, much money has been lost. The response of the American brethren who have been bilked is often to write off all the work there and the men doing it. The reaction of those who “lost their jobs” is often startling too. Since they consider it a job, and they want to hold onto “their job,” they resent those who expose them, furiously so. They consider these to have done them a great personal injury. The results are often considerable trouble.

Incidentally, let me put in a plug here: no one I know of who has been to the Philippines is trying to tell U.S. churches what to do. But some U.S. congregations have received letters seeking support from known “job seekers” or worse, plain crooks. Without even checking with one of us who has been there, these start supporting the man. To say the least, this is not the best stewardship of God’s blessings.

One final comment on money: several Americans who have been there, on return have remarked that the basis of all the trouble seems to be the American dollar, Well, so far as that observation goes, it is probably true. But so is the money the basis of all trouble here in the U.S., again, with the same shallow observation. In both cases, rather, we ought to look at 1 Tim. 6:5,10. Nationality and color of skin do not determine who makes godliness a way of gain, nor who has a love of money. I do not believe the solution is stopping the flow of all American money, including to the good and honest preacher there, in order to be sure it is stopped to the dishonest. Roy Cogdill once said to me that he would rather see ten dishonest men continue receiving support than one honest man lose it. I agree, Given enough time, the dishonest ones will make themselves known, and their support can be switched to honest men. And God’s gospel and its growth would be severely limited and teaching greatly reduced if all support were cut off. Is that what we want? Is money that important to us? Are we not interested in souls?

In the next article, I want to make some comments on how culture affects the Filipino people, and its relationship to salvation.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 7, pp. 117-119
February 15, 1979