Truth Magazine

By Donald P. Ames

The Defender is the name of an eight-page monthly bulletin put out by a liberal church in Pensacola, Florida. It has involved itself in a great deal of controversy with the ultra-liberal element in the church today, and has carried some good material in that effort. However in the June, 1976 issue, Leon Cole of Florence, Ala., decided to take the “antis” to task in an article entitled “From One Extreme To Another.” I have not yet teen able to decide if he was actually as ignorant of the truth as I suppose I ought to graciously consider him, or to conclude he cared that little about what the truth actually was!

Leon Cole begins with a quote from Olan Hicks, “Boys one extreme always leads to another,” and from that finds comfort in “the often maligned `middle of the road’.” He charges that the early opposition to institutionalism led to the opposite extreme of ultra-liberalism, and that now that they are fighting the ultra-liberals, “antism” is again having a resurgence. First of all, I would like to agree with the first half of his claim. It was the early opposition to institutionalism that led to the ultra-liberalism in the church today, but not as he supposes! Ultra-liberalism got its footing in the loose and anti-scriptural positions advocated during the early fifties of “Where there is no pattern, ” etc. What other conclusion was there left for the next generation to go on and accept? Bro. Cole needs to go back and look at the very roots of the movement they are now fighting! As for the “resurgence” of the “antis,” may I politely point out to him we never disappeared. We have been busy preaching the gospel and growing rapidly in the process. However the liberals have sought to isolate themselves from those of us opposing their pet projects, and thus have closed their eyes to our existence until the fruits of their logic gave birth to a new generation of ultra-liberals. Now they are being forced to back up in alarm at what they have begun to reap, and are finding they are having to return to the arguments we have been using all along-and they do not like getting caught in the middle of their own inconsistency. No wonder they have suddenly begun to recognize we are here-they are now hearing many of our own arguments being used, and this means other pet projects they are defending are going to be questioned again. This affords them no little lack of sleep. So, to minimize this effect, many liberals today have grossly misrepresented the facts so many “middle of the roaders” will not learn too much. When will they ever learn what it was that created that mess in the first place?

But after having branded early opposition to institutionalism as “one extreme,” Leon Cole goes on to admit the opposition “began as a legitimate protest (emp. mine-DPA) to including the colleges in the budgets of the churches, questionable projects promoted by a traveling elder or preacher who often would benefit financially if it were adopted, and an effort to make the church a glorified welfare agency or to `glamorize the church’ by watering down the gospel.” This strikes me a bit odd. How can something be an “extreme” and a “legitimate protest” at the same time? Or could it be that now that they have seen the results of the Herald of Truth going into apostasy, men who clearly did abuse their roles then (funny how much better hind-sight is), and the continued rapid growth of the effort to get churches to put the colleges in the budget (yet how can one condemn one human institution and justify another going into the budget-the orphan home?), that they have now concluded those objections were right-but do not want anyone to know they are now recanting and admitting the “antis” were right after all? A thing cannot be a “legitimate protest” and an “extreme” at the same time-it may go to an extreme in objecting, but it cannot start out as both! But Leon Cole charges this “legitimate protest” began sound in its objections (though denied then) and then “degenerated into the formation of a sect.” Well, in the words of the apostle Paul, “But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers” (Acts 24:14).

The first charge against this “sect” is that it was “led by some preachers who sought to have the preeminence.” This I flatly deny! I could as easily charge those who sought to perpetuate the various institutions among us were those who “sought to have the preeminence,” and in this Leon Cole has already agreed. Note his own statement again. First of all, opposition “began as a legitimate protest.” Now, he charges it was “led by some preachers who sought to have the preeminence.” I wish he could decide which it was! Secondly, he admits that this “legitimate protest” was against “questionable projects promoted by a traveling elder or preacher who often would benefit financially if it were adopted”. That sounds to me like those seeking to benefit from the controversy were those who had something to gain! Certainly those gospel preachers who challenged the scripturalness of such were not benefitting financially as they were being quarantined, maligned, had meetings cancelled, lost meeting places, etc. By his own admission, the defenders of these institutions were the ones seeking to “benefit financially” and to “glamorize the church.” And now he charges those objecting with a “legitimate protest” of being so motivated. Hang your head in shame! Caught again!

He then continues to charge that “it was not long till a creed was formulated.” Now a creed is merely a conviction, but since Leon Cole charges we have accepted a creed, perhaps he would like to inform us when it was drawn up, by whom, etc. Have the churches of Christ accepted a “creed” because we believe baptism is by immersion and for the remission of sins? Was a “creed” involved when we objected to the use of instrumental music in worship to God? Yes, we have a creed, but our creed consists of following the word of God and it only (2 John 9). In that respect, apparently, this amounts to a denial the liberals have such a creed anymore. Have they ceased to follow the Bible altogether?

The “tenets” of this creed which Leon Cole has drawn up and so maliciously assigns to us consists of the following points. “One church may not help another in a cooperative work under any circumstances.” Such is an outright falsehood! That is about as logical (and honest) as the Christian Church charging we do not believe in worshipping God in song because we object to instrumental music. Could it be that Leon Cole has begun to see some of these “questionable projects promoted by a traveling elder or preacher” and “effort(s) to make the church a glorified welfare agency” are unscriptural, and this is the only way they could object to ultra-liberal practices without admitting there is a pattern? Caught in the middle again!

The second “tenet” is “Galatians 6:10 and James 1:27 are limited to individuals and benevolence by the church is to saints only . . . .According to the teachings of this sect, if a family where the parents are members of the church are destitute the church could not contribute from its treasury to that family if there were children too young to be members unless the parents would refuse to let the children eat.” Again, purely a false statement-designed to arouse prejudice! I flatly deny anyone so teaches and call on Leon Cole to prove it or admit to (1) misrepresentation or (2) ignorance whereof he wrote! It is true we object to the church taking money from the treasury to care for non-saints, but there is a vast difference in this and aiding needy saints while forbidding them to do what God has commanded them to do (1 Tim. 5:8), and Leon Cole knows such to be so! I defy him to name anyone who would let children go hungry if the church had to relieve needy Christians who were their parents! But that does not authorize the church to become another Salvation Army, and again Leon Cole found himself caught in the middle. He believes benevolence is limited too! Note again his statement that we were raising a “legitimate protest” to “an effort to make the church a glorified welfare agency.” Now perhaps he would like to tell us how he can object to one without any standard of authority and not accept the other? Yes, that “middle of the road” is a dangerous place when one decides to call for authority!

But he then charges Gal. 6:10 is to the church because in v. 11 Paul mentioned his letter which was addressed to the “church” (Gal. 1:1-2). But, in v. 12 he goes on to talk about circumcision-I wonder if that was done to churches or individuals? I wonder if churches or individuals were baptized (Gal. 3:27). I wonder if Paul was part of the church here (6:10-“we”)? And then, since 1 Thess. 1:1 was addressed to the “church,” was Paul talking about churches in 1 Thess. 4:9-12-or individuals? Consistency, thou art a jewel! As for James 1:27, he knows better than to touch that with a ten-foot pole! Leon Cole has a problem. He objects to the church becoming a “glorified welfare agency,” yet wants to take a passage that is addressed to individuals and commit the church to “all men.” Caught in the middle!

The third “tenet” (such a short creed!) is “church property is sacramental and eating on the premises is forbidden, some even declare weddings and funerals should be excluded from the church building.” My, my, something happened here. A “creed” has been accepted by a “sect,” and yet “some” question weddings and funerals in the building. If a creed had been accepted (in the sense he implies), why are brethren still studying the issue and examining the authority that is associated with it? Could it be there is still an area brethren are questioning and requestioning, and not a “creed” at all? Could it be maybe the liberals are questioning their “creed” a church must support these benevolent societies being under elders or a board-but must be supported? Could it be the “creed” of “the college in every budget” is still being studied by them? Thank God brethren are willing to raise “legitimate protests” to abuses and unscriptural activities — and may we continue to examine, question and seek the full truth on all issues!

But how does he justify “eating on the premises”? “If we cannot eat on church premises neither could food be eliminated on church premises.” My my, such great scriptural authority! May I suggest he again read 1 Cor.11l and Paul’s criticism — not: “wait and eat a meal later” but “eat at home.” I suppose in John 2, the Jews should have reasoned, “If you cannot buy on these premises, neither can you sacrifice on them.” If you enter a building that says “no smoking,” and you have filled your lungs with the stink and fumes of this poisonous weed, then you could not exhale at all while in there? If you cannot buy clothes in a church building, can you wear them? Such silly reasoning is hardly worth answering. Food is eaten, digested and eliminated much later. Elimination is not something pre-planned and scheduled nor does the elimination of such convert the building into “fellowship halls” for which thousands of dollars of the Lord’s money are spent! Such places as rest rooms are necessary to public gathers because of this time lapse, especially where the public will be gathered for a prolonged period of time and includes in it babies, small kids-and perhaps yourself if you should get diarrhea, etc. An assembly of a prolonged nature could hardly be held in “decency and order” without such, as recognized by many state laws now. And whether we returned to “out-houses” as he accuses us of needing to do, or maintain an “in-house;” such is needful for an assembly-and a silly quibble if ever one was raised. Certainly the same logic that would iustify an “out-house” would also justify indoor facilities as well!

The issue is: Where has God authorized us to convert a building built .with His funds as part of our efforts to worship Him and teach others the gospel of Christ into a “fellowship hall” and place of entertainment? And, if we can so convert it, what limits would one place upon it? I heard one preacher seek to justify the Boy Scouts being sponsored by the church as “good for the morals of the kids,” but objected to Weight Watchers (“good for caring for the body that we might further serve him”?) as not being “religious” in nature. Surely he knows the difference between modern-day “fellowship halls” and the place authorized for the assembling of the saints, built and maintained by the money contributed to further the work of the Lord! But, as he admits, some today have sought to “glamorize the church” with many unscriptural schemes: sponsoring the Boy Scouts, socials, baby and wedding showers, Halloween parties, slumber parties, etc. Yes, “legitimate protests” were raised and still ask, “Where is the authority?” Caught in the middle again!

Swinging to the other side of his own self-declared “extremes,” he goes on to say, “From the extreme of antism developed an attitude not to be against anything,” and that is what is really upsetting the liberals today! His problem is how to draw the line against a full-scale apostasy they introduced, without being forced to consistently go back all the way and accept the full truth. It is a losing battle. They tried it in the last century and lost, and time will show the same thing will be true of the present apostasy. Too late have these liberals begun to wake up and object of where they are going, while seeking to hang on the ‘groundwork they themselves laid at the same time. No wonder they are so grossly misrepresenting the truth — it’s rough getting caught in the middle!

Truth Magazine XXI: 22, pp. 347-349
June 2, 1977

By Jeffery Kingry

The preacher had always been a very busy man. Between meetings, debates, writing, study, and time spent with preaching cronies little time was spent home with the family. The preacher’s wife made a life that cared for the more “mundane” parts of life without her husband. She had always been taught that it was her lot and duty in life to “make-do” while her husband “sacrificed” for the Lord. Actually, she could have told anyone that the sacrifice was hers to make, and not her husband’s. He was doing what he enjoyed without a feeling of guilt for his neglect of such “non-exciting” duties as nurturing and admonishing his children and demonstrating, due benevolence to his wife. His wife assumed the duties of home and household because she had to.

The preacher sacrificed for the Gospel when he bought the sophisticated tape deck, amplifiers, and speakers to record his own voice. He bought books, tapes, file cabinets, typewriters, overhead projectors, printing presses, cameras, and other various expensive “aids” to help him in his work. His children wore hand-me-downs and ate beans. His wife took a job to make ends meet. While the wife and kids often “made-do” with their clothing, the preacher needed well tailored and attractive suits “for his work.” In some cases the preacher went to the beauty parlor more often than his wife for a razor trim and styling. It was quite a scene: the preacher in the pulpit exhorting brethren “to love your wives as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it.” Later, his wife struggled down the aisle with arms full of babies, Bibles, and diaper bags while the preacher “shakes ’em out” the door.

It is a tribute to the godly nature of women such as these that they endure and persevere, still reverencing their husbands, submitting as unto the Lord. But is this the marriage God engineered in the garden (Gen. 2:24)? Is this the marriage that Jesus compares all marriage to (Matt. 19:4,5)? Can we look upon such a relationship and say with the Lord, “Behold, it is very good”?

The preacher’s family is often vulnerable because of confusion surrounding his work and place in the church. His wife is expected to be “first lady” in the church and must initiate and be included in all social functions. (Some may laugh, but this writer once heard a preacher seriously teach that while speaking on “The Preacher’s Wife.”) Is there a word in all of the Bible about “Preacher’s Wife” qualifications apart form the exhortation given all women and wives? His children are often used or abused by the brethren in attempts to win the parent’s approval, or wreak their vengeance upon the parents without having to personally confront them.

Some men of great ability receive a promotion above “local work.” They become preachers at large — meeting preachers — “prominent” preachers. As one of these brethren once sought to explain it to me, “There is a place, mind you, for the local preacher — the one who deals with problems and teaches only on a local level. But there is a place as well for those men who have the opportunity to deal with the bigger picture-those errors that are brotherhood wide. There have to be brotherhood preachers as well!” Often, these men do not actively seek this larger role, but have it thrust upon. them. But, however it is obtained, is there any precedent, example or authority for anything but a “local preacher?” Like personal work, preaching that is so broadly based as to be addressed to everyone, is addressed to no one. “Brotherhood preachers” seldom if ever touch and change as many lives as the man that takes them one at a time.

Too many times the problem is complicated when the preacher’s wife reacts emotionally to such presumptuous neglect by selfishness on her own part. The wife may refuse to anything that needs to be done, except as it pleases her. She has often developed her own way of life and living apart from her husband and family. It is from this world that she seeks what she feels she needs. The children are neglected, housework is not done, meals are not prepared, the family’s solidarity dissolves as everyone goes his own way and does as he pleases. The T.V. becomes the babysitter, teacher, and companion to the young. The adolescent turns to his friends and peers for love, approval, guidance as he sees only benign neglect form his parents. Resentments from unresolved anger and hatred build up in the marriage till all mutual feeling of compassion and love is smothered. Divorce is not a way out for godly Christians, so the preacher and his wife lead a grey, passionless existence having long past shed their tears of loss over their loneliness.

It Is A Problem

Anyone who does not believe there are such family problems among God’s servants is not too observant. It would be possible, if it were necessary, to take the specific lives of many families within the church to document this composite picture. The problem is not confronted and dealt with as a problen within the church because we are so loathe to recognize it to start with.

Responsibility

We owe much of this problem to our collective fuzzy thinking on the work of the preacher. Talk with any group of brethren for very long about the work of the evangelist, and soon he will have more qualifications and duties than an elder!

In the minds of many brethren, the preacher must compete with and parallel the denominational “Reverends.” Since we cannot have a Pastpr, we have a “Minister” and “Christianize” a denominational clergy. Our clergy must be well-dressed, well educated, on constant call, always on display, and set apart. The preacher is seldom considered a part of the local congregation where he worships. He is an employee of the church to be controlled, or who exercises control.

What is this man’s responsibility? What is his responsibility before God to the church, the sinner, the unbeliever, his family, his wife, his children? The questions and problems raised in this article cannot be answered in a few words-but they do have an answer. God’s word has an answer for every relationship of man (2 Pet. 1:3).

Truth Magazine XXI: 22, pp. 345-346
June 2, 1977

By Luther Blackmon

Following World War Two a wave of prosperity, unparalled in our recent history, swept over this land. Churches of Christ were able to reach towards objectives which were once as far away as the moon. But in religion, as in other areas of society, prosperity spawns its corresponding problems.

Put a lot of money into the hands of preachers and elders, and human nature will do the rest. Some “career conscious” and persuasive preachers with big plans will go to work on some elders who are better business men than elders, and the next thing you know they will drag in a Trojan horse much too big for the New Testament harness. There will be protests. But such promoters are not easily discouraged, especially when they are promoting with somebody else’s money. Besides they will find a way to alter the harness to fit this nag. Some naive soul may suggest that the Lord designed that harness and that rather than change the harness, why not use a horse that the harness fits. If these protests get loud, and they did, the propaganda machine is set in motion and woe unto the preachers that are making the noise. Such a one is made to look like Judas Iscariot, Jr. He is a “do nothing,” and “anti” and jealous because he is not in charge of it. He must be ignored. “This great work must go on” — like Nehemiah’s statement (Neh. 6:3) — is about as apropos as the “thief on the cross” argument to prove salvation without baptism. Nehemiah was doing what God wanted done. If these fellows will show me scriptural authority for their projects, they will have one more on the wall with them. But they will have to give me more than their word that God wants the church to engage in building and/or maintaining “Youth Retreats,” “Youth Camps,” “Hospitals,” “Colleges,” “Homes for Unwed Mothers,” “Teenage Lounges,” “Preachers’ Retreats,” “Mission Conferences,” “Youth Forums,” “Mission Seminars,” “Tri-State Rallies,” “Faith Corps,” and so on and on and on. And if somebody thinks I dreamed these things I have news for him. Most of these were taken from the Christian Chronicle, a paper published in Abilene, Texas, edited by one of the founders of the Herald of Truth. If you have not heard of all these things just be patient, you will. In fact the church where you worship will be supporting these things-some of them-eventually, or it will bear the stigma of “anti.” Perish the thought!

There are many brethren who, ten years ago, refused to consider the possibility that these innovations would come. The benevolent institutions were alright, they thought. There were some things about the Herald of Truth that needed watching, but, it was doing so much good it must be alright. But you simply cannot set aside Bible authority to let in one thing without opening the door for other things. Now it boils down to this: The people will either swallow one big innovation after another and lead the Church of Christ into the fold of denominationalism, or turn back and meet the scorn and ridicule that some of us have been “enjoying” for years. Which will it be? Several preachers have already gone into the Christian Church. Others who still hold onto the name have frankly admitted that they will not recognize any wall between the Church of Christ and the denominations. I have a great deal more respect for men like Carl Ketcherside and Robert Meyers who express quite frankly their views along this line, than I have for some of the mealy-mouthed fellows who want their people to believe that they are right where they have always been, but who keep a damp finger in the air to see which way the wind blows. We are ON THE MARCH alright — but to where? I am reminded that, “it is not the speed we make, but the direction we take that gets us where we want to go.”

Truth Magazine XXI: 22, p. 345
June 2, 1977

By William J. Imrisek

Words are merely symbols that convey meaning. They may signify objects, actions, abstract or concrete ideas and concepts, emotions and feelings, etc. Good communication depends upon speaking so as to be understood. As the apostle Paul recognized, “If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken?” (1 Cor. 14:8-9).

Man’s ability to communicate effectively depends upon his ability to utilize words properly. He must use words that are familiar to his hearer. He must also attach to these words the same meaning that his hearer understands them to possess. When either one of these principles is violated a breakdown in communication occurs, with the end result of a misunderstanding or a complete failure to understand.

I recall an instance several years ago in which I and the one with whom I was speaking were guilty of violating this latter principle. We were talking about the manner and habits of “gophers.” However, as the conversation progressed it became evident that we were not speaking about the same creature. I soon learned that my friend was referring to a tortoise, common in the southern coastal states, which the local people called a “gopher.” But to a homegrown Northerner such as myself the only type of gopher of which I was knowledgeable was a rodent, similar in appearance to a squirrel, which burrows tunnels through the soil of the Midwestern prairies in search of roots and plants for its next meal. In our conversation we were using the identical word symbol, but we were each attaching to it a different meaning. This resulted in a temporary breakdown in communication.

This same problem can occur when we are studying or expounding the scriptures. We may use biblical terms and think that we are expressing biblical ideas, but unless we are attaching to these terms the same ideas that God attaches to them, we are misunderstanding Him. Thus it is possible for a person to use such terms as “faith,” “works,” “born again,” “saved by grace,” “church,” “bishop,” “priest,” “confession,” “baptism,” “repentance,” and “confirm,” all biblical terms, but attach a different meaning to them than that given to them by their use in the Bible. The result is a failure to understand God as He has spoken.

As a preacher I often encounter this problem when trying to explain to people the type of work that I do. Almost invariably they will respond, “Oh, then you are a pastor.” I must then stop and explain to them that I am not a pastor, but rather a preacher or evangelist. But this usually only confuses them. They have learned to associate the terms “pastor” and “preacher” with the same function. They fail to realize that in the Bible a preacher is not the same as a pastor. Their error lies in giving a biblical term an unbiblical meaning. In this case, it usually results in a perversion of both the work of a pastor (in its biblical sense) and the work of a preacher (in its biblical sense).

The Work of a Pastor

The word “pastor” is found only one time in the New Testament of our English Bibles, this being in Eph. 4:11. And although the function of a pastor is not here specifically identified, it is seen to be distinguished from that of the evangelist (or preacher). “He (God) gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teacher.” Thus, the Bible identifies these two function separately.

Although the word “pastor” is found only this one time in our English translations, the Greek word from which the term “pastor” is translated (poimen) is found fifteen more times in the Greek, and is elsewhere translated in the New Testament as “shepherd.” It describes one who feeds and tends a flock of sheep. It is used in its literal sense in such passages as Matt. 9:36 and Luke 2, 8, 15, 18, 20. Metaphorically, Jesus is referred to as a shepherd (John 10:11, 14; Heb. 13:20). Likewise, it is used as a descriptive term to identify the servants of God who have been given the responsibility to shepherd, feed, and tend the flock of God (Eph. 4:11), the church. We can therefore learn more about who a pastor is by examining the scriptures and recognizing to whom this identical responsibility of shepherding, feeding, and tending God’s flock has been given.

The scriptures inform us that this responsibility has been placed in the hands of men who are called “elders” and “overseers” or “bishops.” For example, in Acts 20:1728 it is said of Paul that “from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church. And when they were come to him, he said unto them . . . Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock of God over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed (poimaino) the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” Here we see that elders (also called overseers) were given the responsibility of feeding or pastoring the church of God. The term “elder,” from the Greek, presbuteros, meaning “aged person” is used synonymously with the term “overseer.” Overseer comes from the Greek, episkopos, and is also translated in the Bible as “bishop” (Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:7).

Peter likewise tells us that the work of elders was that of overseeing and feeding the church of God. He says, “The elders (presbuterois) which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: feed (poimaino) the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight (episkopeo) thereof, not by constraint, but willingly” (1 Pet. 5:1-2). We can conclude then that the terms “elder,” “bishop” (overseer), and “pastor” all refer to the same person: “elder” referring to his physical age as well as to his spiritual maturity; “bishop” describing his function of overseeing the church; and “pastor” designating his responsibility to feed and tend the flock of God so that their spiritual appetites will be completely satisfied.

Although the word “elder” signifies seniority in years, maturity, and experience, a man does not become a pastor or bishop by reason of years alone, but rather by right of qualification (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9) and appointment (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). It is God’s will that there be elders in every local church where there are men qualified (Acts 14:23). Thus we read about elders in the churches of Ephesus (Acts 20:17), Philippi (Phil. 1:1), and also Jerusalem (Acts 15:4). It will be noted that in each church there was a plurality (always more than one) of elders. No single elder was exalted over another, but they all shared equally in the responsibility given to them. In addition, their oversight was limited to the “flock of God which is among. you” (1 Pet. 5:2).

As Christians we have responsibilities toward these men. They are watchmen for our souls. Therefore, we are commanded to “obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief” (Heb. 13:17).

These men rule not as lords or dictators over God’s church, but as servants, leading us by their instruction (Heb. 13:7) and their example (1 Pet. 5:3), correcting us as faithful watchmen, and feeding us with the wisdom and instruction which is from God (Acts 20:28). We must respect these godly men and give them the honor which is due to them (1 Tim. 5:17). These are the men that the Bible refers to as pastors, bishops, and elders.The Work of a Preacher

But I am not a pastor. I am a preacher. And as a preacher I do not have the oversight or rule over the church of God. Rather, as a member of the local church I must also submit to the elders as those that have the rule over me, and I must not seek to usurp their authority. I must give them the honor that is due to them, and I must maintain the proper distinction between the function of a pastor or elder and the function which I must fulfill as a preacher.

Inherent in the work of the evangelist or preacher is the proclaiming of the good news of Jesus Christ. He must proclaim the word of faith whereby souls might be saved (Rom. 10:13-17). He must bring this message to the lost so that they might learn of it, believe, and be baptized (Matt. 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16; Eph. 3:8-10).

He also has a reciprocal responsibility to those who have had their sins forgiven to “teach them to observe all things whatsoever I (Jesus) have commanded” (Matt. 28:20). He must “put the brethren in remembrance of these things” in order to be “a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine” (1 Tim. 4:6). He must be a defender of the gospel (Phil. 1:17), ready to “preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2). His life must be a reflection of the gospel which he preaches, and he must be an example to the believer as well as to the unbeliever (1 Tim. 4:12; Titus 2:7-8). He labors for the Lord among the lost and among the saved, and stands accountable to his Master (1 Cor. 4:1-5).

The distinction between a pastor (or elder) and a preacher (or evangelist) is seen not only in the function which each must perform but also in the qualifications which each must possess. Inherent in the definition of the term “elder” is that he be an older man. An evangelist, however, may be a younger man, such as Timothy (2 Tim. 4:5; 1 Tim. 4:12). Likewise, among the qualifications for an elder is that he be the husband of one wife and have children who are faithful to the Lord (1 Tim. 3:2, 4, 5; Titus 1:6). But a man who is a preacher need not be married or have a family. The apostle Paul referred to himself as a preacher (1 Tim. 2:7). Nevertheless, he was unmarried (1 Cor. 7:8). Thus, although he was a preacher, he was not qualified to be a pastor.Conclusion

Many have erred in believing that a preacher is inherently a pastor. They are guilty of an unbiblical use of the word “pastor” and, more often than not, have placed upon the preacher a function and responsibility not given to him by God. The preacher is not the shepherd or pastor of the local church. This responsibility rightly belongs to those men who are qualified and appointed, men whom the Bible calls elders and bishops.

In order to understand God we must understand Him as He has spoken. We do not have the right to redefine His. words. Such would be dishonest.

Let us be careful lest we have misunderstood God by mishandling His word (2 Tim. 2:15). Words are important. They are the means by which God has chosen to communicate His will to man. To fail to understand God as He has spoken is to fail to understand His will.

Truth Magazine XXI: 22, pp. 343-344
June 2, 1977