Truth Magazine

By James W Adams

(EDITORS NOTE: The following article constitutes one of the brief chapters in a new book published by Biblical Research Press of Abilene, Texas. J. D. Thomas is the Editor, and I presume the owner of Biblical Research Press. The first books were received by me on October 10, 1974. So it is a brand new publication! In his Introduction, Brother Thomas said: “. . . we have asked forty-seven men to briefly state their views on what the brotherhood lacks–what they feel could be improved upon and which would give great aid to the progress of the Cause of Christ. We chose these men from among leaders all across the spectrum of Brotherhood thought-from `liberal’ to conservative’ and from `left’ to definite `right.’ Each of these men is influential within his own sphere and is looked upon as a leader.”

The title of the book is WHAT LACK WE YET? It is nicely printed and case bound, with an attractive jacket, and consists of 319 pages. brother James W. Adams and I were asked to write a chapter each in the book. Though Brother Thomas makes no attempt to classify particular men. I suspect that he would classify Brother Adams and me as the most “conservative” and “definite `right’ ” of those men chosen to write chapters. Having just received the book, I must confess that 1 have not read it entirely, as yet. However, I suspect that many brethren would find some interesting reading in this book. No price is published in the copies I received, but I have been informed that the price is $7.95. If you want a copy, we will stock some in the Bookstore. I felt readers of TRUTH MAGAZINE might want to read what Brother Adams and I had to say in this book. My article appeared in the October 31st issue. You will also find some “way-out” stuff in it, but those who want to keep informed on what is occurring among us will most likely want to read this book.-Cecil Willis

“Who is left among you that saw this house in her first glory? and how do ye see it now? is it not in your eyes in comparison of it as nothing” (Haggai 2:3)?

A careful study of the book of Ezra will reveal that the Lord had stirred up Cyrus, king of Persia, to release the Jews from captivity that they might return to Judea and build again the house of God which Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed. They returned to Judea and laid the foundation of the house of God, but because of opposition, they ceased their labors. Fourteen years passed, and the opposition ceased, but they had not gone back to work on the house of God. In the meantime, they had built themselves houses in which to live in comfort while “the house of God lay waste.” Haggai was sent by God to rebuke the Jews for their conduct and to call them back to the task appointed of God; namely, the restoration of His house. It was in connection with these events that the prophet raised the questions of our text which suggest the title of this article.

Some were still living who had seen Solomon’s temple in all its glory, hence were greatly discouraged with the restoration efforts. Their altered circumstances made it impossible for them to rebuild as glorious a house as the original. Haggai took note of this fact and encouraged them with the assurance that the Lord was with them in their faithful efforts at restoration. “Be strong, O Zerrubabel, saith the Lord; and be strong, O Joshua, son of Josedech; and be strong, all ye people of the land, saith the Lord, and work: for I am with you, saith the Lord of hosts” (Haggai 2:4).

A Pertinent Analogy

The situation of professed churches of Christ today is analogous to the condition that obtained among the Jews of our text. The New Testament contains much teaching concerning the church of our Lord under the figure of a temple-the temple of God (Eph. 2:19-22; 1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 1 Pet. 2:4,5). The original,, spiritual temple of (god (the church) was laid waste by apostasy beginning near the close of the apostolic age and maturing by the middle of the seventh century. During his lifetime, Paul warned that such would occur (Acts 20:28-31; 2 Thess. 1:1-12). This state of apostasy continued for more than twelve hundred years. Its bleakest hours were probably during the Middle Ages. The Renaissance, followed by the Reformation dispelled engulfing clouds of ignorance, oppression, and religious error creating a situation in which serious efforts at religious “restoration” could be launched. Freedom from Roman Catholic tyranny, however, gave birth to the licentious forming of multitudes of human denominations. Each denomination emerged as an effort either to revive some aspect of New Testament teaching or practice which was lost in the great apostasy or to champion some doctrine or practice which was the direct consequence of rebellion against or overreaction to Roman Catholic error. Many of these doctrines and practices were equally as fallacious as the error which produced them. It is the nature of men to swing from one extreme to the other.

Out of this state of denominational chaos came the plea for “a restoration of the ancient order of things”-a plea for a return to the faith and practice of the apostolic church. In America particularly, this plea fell upon receptive ears and crystallized in a movement to make it a practical reality, familiar to members of churches of Christ as “The Restoration Movement.” Present day churches of Christ, whether they care to admit it or not (and I blush not to do so), are the direct descendants historically from this movement, hence they rest squarely on “the restoration principle”-the principle exemplified by the Jews of our text. The validity of the principle is seen in the fact that it was in obedience to a direct command of Jehovah that the Jews rebuilt the house of God and restored the practice of the law of Moses.

“The Restoration Principle”

The above being true, I agree with Dr. Alfred T. DeGroot that churches of Christ “will live or die, prosper or decline, in accordance with what they think and do about the restoration principle” (The Restoration Principle, The Bethany Press, 1960, p. 7). Dr. DeGroot, distinguished college professor and preacher among “The Disciples of Christ,” repudiates “Legalistic primitivism or restorationism.” He believes that such has “stunted the spiritual development” of many professed restoration movements in history. He, insists that “a restoration movement in the church or elsewhere can never wholly reconstitute the exact conditions of life that formerly obtained or the original structure of an organization within that life” (Op. cit., pp. 7, 165). DeGroot’s “restoration principle” stated simply is a restoration of the spirit of New Testament Christianity rather than its form. In this connection, DeGroot lists six attributes of the spirit which should be restored in professed believers today. It will suffice to say for the purposes of this article that DeGroot represents the most liberal element among so-called “Disciples of Christ” who, since the writing of his book, have formally constituted themselves a human denomination and have joined the mainstream of liberal “Christendom.”

I believe with DeGroot that the attitude professed “churches of Christ” assume with reference to “the restoration principle” will determine their future. I do not agree with what he conceives “the restoration principle” to be. It is my conviction that no informed and honest person among the brethren will deny that the various attitudes which are extant today among us toward said “restoration principle” are directly responsible for most of the schisms and open divisions (parties) that harass us. Therefore, it should be evident to all that the crying need of our time is for us to come to a meeting of the minds relative to what the absolutely essential elements of “the house of God” (spiritual) as originally constituted by its Divine builder (Mt. 16:18) were in order that we may form proper judgments as to how far we have digressed therefrom, hence what needs to be rebuilt or restored.

Though the rebuilt temple of God in Jerusalem obviously did not possess the same glory as its original, it is clear from Haggai’s statements that Jehovah was pleased with the work done and gave the Jews assurance of His continued presence and blessing. Therefore, the essential features of the original house of God must have been restored. It is not difficult to accept the fact that twentieth century Christians might not be able to restore certain aspects of the apostolic church and her practice which contributed to her original glory (This is particularly so of the miraculous manifestations.) but we can restore her essentials as to form, teaching, worship, and work. To me, it is axiomatic that whatever was absolutely essential to the existence and acceptability of a church of the Lord in the first century is essential to the existence and acceptability to God of a church of Christ in the twentieth century. If not, why not?

Proper Motivation

“Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life” (Prov. 4:23). Where opposing concepts and consequent division exist among brethren, proper motivation is basic to any hope for peace and unity. Dissident groups must approach a consideration of the issues which divide them with intellectual honesty and objective moderation. This is often easier said than done. Passion and self-interest too often rule in such matters. Joined with these qualities must be sincere love for God, for truth, and for one another. “Love covers a multitude of sins” (1 Pet. 4:8). Yet, it must be recognized that proper motivation is but a first step. Particularly is this true when the issues which divide are intellectually rather than emotionally rooted.

A Proper Standard of Authority

Theoretically and traditionally, modern churches of Christ are committed to the necessity of having Divine authority for religious faith and practice and to the teaching of the New Testament as constituting the allsufficient standard of that authority. However, this can no longer be taken for granted. Many among professed churches of Christ today believe that the Scriptures contain the truth but that not all things therein are true. Others, while accepting all things in the Scriptures as true, do not believe that we must have authority from Scripture for all that we believe and practice in religion. Particularly, do they believe this to be true in so-called “areas of silence.” This suggests two things which I conceive to constitute a “lack” among churches of Christ today: (1) We must come to an agreement as to whether we are right or wrong in contending for the necessity of authority from scripture for every item of faith and l or practice in religion (This has been our plea; snau n continue to be?); and (2) we must develop a sound hermeneutics acceptable to all by means of which we may determine what is and what is not authorized by the Scriptures. The first of these is basic but easier of solution. The second involves the problem facing the great majority of the brethren and it is much more difficult of solution.

A Sound Hermeneutics

Though we accept the fact of the necessity for scriptural authority for religious faith and practice, this is meaningless if we cannot agree on a system of hermeneutics by means of which we can determine what the Scriptures do or do not authorize. Hermeneutics is the science of Biblical interpretation. Its province is to formulate rules by means of which the meaning of Scripture may be determined. Exegesis is the art of applying the rules of hermeneutics to specific passages of Scripture and determining their meaning. Hermeneutics always precedes exegesis. Application is the practical use of Divine principles (ascertained from Scripture by hermeneutics and exegesis) in determining whether any given item of faith or practice is or is not authorized by the Scriptures.

The thing most lacking in our time is a sound system of hermeneutics universally recognized by the brethren. Exegesis and application will be fairly simple if we can ever settle the matter of hermeneutics. I suggest, therefore, that the best minds and the most informed Bible students among all elements among professed churches of Christ should concentrate on this problem. Some work has been done and some progress made, but it is my conviction that the last word has not been said.

Truth Magazine XVIII: 3, pp. 43-44
November 21, 1974

By Larry Ray Hafley

Well, have you ever thought about it? Students are out of school. Several are off work on Saturday morning. So, why not plan a Saturday morning service during your gospel meetings?

Very few churches conduct morning services during the week for various reasons. (Or should I say, in some cases, “excuses?”) But how many churches are there that could not profitably plan a Saturday morning assembly during their regular gospel meeting? Surely, most places would have enough who could be present to make it worth the time and effort. Carting a preacher several hundred miles should cause us to want to milk him for all the word of God we can squeeze out of him, and a Saturday morning service gives one more opportunity to profit from his preaching.

No, I am not trying to run your gospel meeting schedule for you. I just thought this might be an idea that would be worthy of consideration. What do you say?

Truth Magazine XVIII: 1, p. 14
November 7, 1974

By Norman E. Fultz

Several years ago, an article entitled “The Preacher Asks For A Raise” made the rounds in church bulletins. It began immediately to explain that a raise in finances was not meant, but rather a raise in attendance, interest, etc. But this present article is talking about a raise in finances, for very likely indeed your preacher will need a raise in income this year.

Through the years we preachers have had a real reluctance to talk about our finances, and in many instances the ignorance of the brethren relative to preacher support is because of our reticence to inform them. Most preachers had rather switch locations than ask for a raise, and in too many instances the brethren have not been far sighted or business like enough to provide the raise without his asking. There has generally been reflected on the part of brethren what appears to be a fear the preacher may be too well supported, that he might not be able to handle a really livable wage. Brethren, I want to share a few thoughts whose time have come.

We surely already know the scripturalness of financially supporting the preaching of the gospel. But in case some may be unable to recall such, let’s allow Paul’s arguments to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 9:4-14), his statement of receipt of wages (2 Cor. 11:8), and his commendation of the Philippians (Phil. 1:5; 4:15-18) for their support, to suffice.

There are a number of factors which good judgment demands must be considered in the support of a preacher. To some extent, the size and ability of the congregation are factors; yet groceries, housing, clothing, utilities, gasoline, car payments and other expenses of the preacher are not priced to him and his family according to the size of the church with which he works. Those items cost him just the same as they do the preacher who works with a church on the other side of town which is twice the size and whose support may be twice as much. Nor does it follow that the preacher working with the small group is necessarily doing less work than he with a large church, and therefore should receive less. If the congregation cannot afford adequately to support him, perhaps he could receive additional support from another church until local ability increases, though I have known of instances where the church considered it a blow to their pride to even think such. In some cases, the preacher may take secular work to augment his income; and I do not think a preacher ought to consider himself too good to do just that when necessary. And some preachers who do have very good support need to learn a little more charity and to be less critical toward those who find it necessary to “make tents” on the side.

But our primary thought here is the need for brethren to keep the support adequate with an occasional raise to offset increasing costs. Many labor for the same wage for years. To illustrate: I personally worked with one congregation four and a half years and was receiving the same when I left as when I began, and it was not <t tub of butter. In fact, when my wife took a job for a while, the elders stopped our house rent and we had to pay it. We moved to another work for $15 less weekly because I thought living costs would be much less in that area (They were not.) and because of the inability of the church and the prospects for a good work. During the two and a half years of fruitful work there, the financial ends never did meet, but in order to at least get them a little closer together, I often went out and sold a few Dickson Bibles. I then got an increase in support by moving to another work where the support was almost exactly the same as I had received in the prior location. I am sure many preachers could recite similar experiences. Brethren, just those moving costs turned to preacher support might save a lot of unnecessary moving and ease some preachers’ financial strain.

The preacher carries a financial load most people in public work do not appreciate. An article in The Commercial Appeal (August 28, 1973), reported that fringe benefits paid to employees average 25 per cent of their wage and in one group it was 41 per cent. These fringes are in the form of life and health insurance, retirement programs, profit sharing, etc. The preacher pays his own hospitalization which costs about one-third more than group insurance and gives him far less benefits. He pays his own life insurance, and he usually has no employer paying half his social security, nor contributing dollar for dollar into a profit sharing fund, nor giving him a nice year-end bonus. And remember that the preacher’s check is his gross and that is the amount most compare with their own net income.

Social security is a big expenditure for the preacher as a self-employed person and is getting bigger each year. For 1973 the rate was 8 per cent on a maximum of $10,800. The rate for 1974 is 8 per cent on $13,200. And remember that the preacher has to pay social security on the fair rental value of that house provided him in those cases where churches own the house in which he lives. In recent years, I have heard of a few churches that help the preacher with his social security at year’s end.

The preacher has the same increased costs of living as do those whose contract provides for an automatic cost of living raise or whose employer is knowledgeable and appreciative enough to give his employees a raise, but the preacher generally does not get a systematic increase. A very recent news article reported an 8.8 per cent increase in cost of living last year. And it said that it cost a person with a $12,000 income last year about 51,168 more to live than the year before. Well, there may not be a lot of $12,000 a year preachers, but their costs would be proportionate.

Most preachers have a good deal of driving to do. Increases in gasoline costs will hit hard whether for local work or in driving to gospel meetings across country. So, brethren, that standard amount you have been supporting a man in a meeting for the past several years has diminished in size. Especially would I encourage consideration for those preaching brethren who devote most all their time to gospel meeting work and whose travel expenses are therefore monumental.

Yes, brethren, your preacher will need a raise this year in all probability. May I encourage an objective, businesslike consideration of the matter of preacher support with a view to making it possible for him to do the work without having constantly to worry about finances?

Truth Magazine XVIII: 1, pp. 13-14
November 7, 1974

By Dan Walters

The eight statements of our Lord beginning with the word “blessed” which occur in Matthew 5:3-10 are commonly known as “the beatitudes,” from “beatus,” the Latin word for “blessed.” These declarations describe qualifications that one must possess in order to enter into and remain a faithful citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven. They deal with religion, or man’s relationship with God, more than with pure ethics. In fact some of the statements make little or no sense when regarded simply as moral laws intended to bring happiness on earth. The principles taught here must be understood as pointing toward the coming Gospel Dispensation to be ushered in on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (See Acts 2 for fulfillment.)

Verse 3 says, “Blessed are the poor. in spirit: for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.” Here is a realization of one’s lost condition. One who is rich in spirit has a haughty attitude and believes himself to be in need of nothing. He trusts in his own righteousness. In order to convert anyone, it is first necessary to convince the person of his lost and hopeless condition outside of Christ. He must be made to see that he has no spiritual resources of his own. He must see himself as a little child totally dependent on the heavenly Father. (Mk. 10:15).

Verse 4 states, “Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.” Here is the attitude that leads to repentance. The mourning is sorrow over one’s sin. “Godly sorrow worketh repentance.” (2 Cor. 7:10). One must realize that his sinful life has offended an almighty and a loving God. The tragedy of sin must be clearly seen before one can make a decision to turn from it utterly.

Verse 5 reads, “Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.” Here is the state of humble submission to God’s will. Meekness is opposed to arrogance or self-seeking. Let no one suppose that the meek individual is a milquetoast. Moses, the mighty general and statesman, is described in Num. 12:3 as being meek above all men on the earth. Moses was humble in God’s sight and sought to do His will without question or dispute. The meek person will accept the Gospel terms of pardon without rebelling against any of them. He will then continue to do “all things according to the pattern.” (Heb. 8:5).

Verse 6 declares, “Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.” Here is a recognition of need for spiritual blessings which only God can provide. One must not only recognize his own spiritual destitution, but must also have a burning desire to be justified in God’s sight, to be reconciled to Him, to experience the blessings He has reserved for His children. All spiritual blessings are to be found in Christ. (Eph. 1:3). In obedience to the gospel we are baptized into Christ and into His body, the church. (Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 12:13; Col. 1:18).

Verse 7 affirms, “Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.” Here is the knowledge that our own salvation depends entirely upon God’s mercy in forgiving our sins, and we must extend this forgiving spirit to others. If we had earned or deserved our own salvation, then we could be harsh and unforgiving with others who transgress. But since salvation was offered to us purely through grace and mercy, we must, in order to be followers of Christ, be merciful to others even when they have done us great harm. If we reject the principle of mercy, then God will reject its application to us (Matt. 18:23-34).

Verse 8 teaches, “Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.” Here is the emphasis upon the change of heart brought about by conversion, as opposed to the outward formalism of the Jews’ religion. 1 Pet. 1:22 teaches that we purify our souls in obeying the truth. When we are converted we are born again and are then new creatures, freed from the old corruption. (1 Pet. 1:23; 2 Cor. 5:17). Jesus taught that evil deeds proceed from evil hearts. Conversely, a pure heart leads to a pure life. Christians are warned to keep themselves unspotted from the world. (Jas. 1:27).

Verse 9 tells us, “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” Here we see the peace that comes through the spreading of the Gospel of Christ. The Gospel is called the “gospel of peace.” (Eph. 6:15). This does not refer to a political or civil peace. The purpose of the Gospel is to reconcile men to God, thus making peace. (Eph. 2:15,16). A result of this first peace is a second peace which will be found to exist among those who share salvation in Christ, since they are taught to love one another and to keep unity. (Eph. 4:2,3). There is also the mental peace known to the individual Christian. (Phil. 4:7). It is not right to attempt to bring peace between Christians and the enemies of Christ by compromise. After all the Prince of Peace is the one who announced, “I came not to send peace, but a sword.” (Matt. 10:34).

Verse 10 comforts with these words, “Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Here is encouragement to help Christians endure inevitable persecution by the forces of this world. 2 Tim. 3:12 says, “All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.” This is true in every age. Matt. 5:12 teaches that the righteous of the Old Testamen were persecuted in their time, and we are their spiritual descendants. Methods of persecution vary, but persecution never ceases. Even today it is common for faithful soldiers of the cross to have “all manner of evil” spoken against them falsely. Verses 11 and 12 are merely enlargements upon this last beatitude. We are told to rejoice in the face of such persecution, knowing that our reward in heaven will greatly outweigh any suffering that we may experience here.

Truth Magazine XVIII: 2, p. 18
November 14, 1974