Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

Since its beginning in 1969, 1 have been a member of the Westside church in Marion, Indiana. Prior to that, I worked with the Southside congregation in Marion, where Tom Wheeler now preaches. Part of the time at Westside, I have served as preacher for the congregation, but on a part-time basis, due to my meeting work and the work done on Truth Magazine. Brother Steve Wolfgang, now of Franklin, Tennessee, worked two years with the Westside church shortly after it began, and during that time it enjoyed excellent growth. Brother Norman Midgette now preaches for the Westside congregation.

A few weeks ago, during one of the class discussions, the thought was raised, “I wonder what the contribution of this congregation would be if every wage-earner contributed just 10% of his earnings each week.” Someone else took up the thought, and within a few weeks, someone suggested, “Why don’t we all just deposit in a question box at the rear of the auditorium a small slip of paper on which we list only our income for last year?” The contribution at Westside is not bad. For instance, last month (June) our attendance at the Sunday morning service averaged 154 and our contributions averaged $785.31 per week.

Westside congregation would have to be called an “average” congregation. We do not have any big business men in the congregation, nor do we have any one wage earner whose income is so fantastic that it would off-set and disrupt any average we might take. Most of our members are people who moved up from the South, and who have an hourly job in one of the plants here. Some of the larger employers here are General Motors, RCA, Anaconda, St. Regis Paper Company, General Tire and Rubber Company, Foster-Forbes Glass Company, and Dana Corporation. Though we have what I consider good employment opportunities for a community of 40,000 people, yet the employment opportunities are somewhat typical of others in surrounding cities, like Kokomo, Indianapolis, South Bend, Columbus, Fort Wayne, Gary, Hammond, Evansville, etc. I see nothing that would make the income of the Marion members unusual.

After, it was decided that we were going to do such a survey, we emphasized that it was being done strictly on a voluntary basis, and that no importance was being attached to whether a particular member participated in this survey or did not do so. Furthermore, we insisted that the figures be turned in without any kind of identification upon them. In order that we might have some standard measurement guide, we asked that the value of fringe benefits be not included in the figure cited. Incidentally, an accountant told me recently that the company-paid fringe benefits of the six largest corporations in America average a little over $300 per month per employee. I am sure nearly every employee would dispute that figure, but when one figures in the cost of company-paid retirement programs, along with what some would call standard fringe benefits, I suspect that the figure given is correct. But fringe benefits vary widely from company to company. Some companies have a “matching dollar” stock purchase program, whereby an employee might put in one dollar, and the company would give him another dollar with which to purchase company stock. On the other hand, some employees get virtually no fringe benefits at all. So we asked that these be omitted from the figure submitted.

Furthermore, we asked that part-time employees not enter their income into the composite figure. We asked that students who worked only a part of the year not participate. We asked also that if both husband and wife had full-time jobs that two figures be deposited, instead of lumping them together. In the cases of those who had business-related expenses which were income tax deductible, these expense amounts also were to be excluded from the figure cited. In other words, we wanted either one’s “Adjusted Gross Income” tax figure, or one’s W-2 tax form figure. A goodly number of our members did not participate in this survey (not quite half of our employed people reported), and no criticism whatever was made of them for not doing so. We were very emphatic in stating that this was voluntarily being done just to see what we might all learn about ourselves, as a congregation.

Now here are the results: 8 of our wage-earners earn $15,000 or more per year; 5 of our members earn less than $10,000 per year; and the other 5 earn between $10,000 and $15,000 per year. You can tell thereby that only 18 full-time employees reported their income. However, what we learned from this little survey was quite revealing to me. One thing I learned is that I am going to have to treat some of my brethren with a good deal more respect than I have in the past, for I did not know that we had anyone in the congregation who earned as much as several of these brethren reported. Unfortunately, I do not know which ones of the brethren have these higher incomes, and furthermore, it would be sinful if I treated them any differently than I did the lowest paid member of the congregation.

But the most interesting figure of all to me was that the average income of those who participated in this survey was over $14,000 per year! The Internal Revenue Service states that the fact that a preacher’s housing is provided for him tax-free, or that a housing allowance is excludable from income, makes him equal with other employees who do not pay income tax on their fringe benefits. Of the 18 people who reported their income, our preacher (Norman Midgette) was Number 12 on the list. We all know his income, because it is posted every month on the bulletin board for everyone to see! How many other members would be willing to have their income posted on the bulletin board for everyone else to see? Some might even consider that to be an intrusion upon their privacy.

As long as I have been preaching (and that is now a little over 25 years), I have been told that preachers should not make more than the average member makes! I have never particularly objected to that statement. However, some preachers work hard enough that they ought to be paid more than the average member makes, and some other preachers are so lazy and indifferent toward their work that they should be paid a good deal less than the average member makes, if indeed they are going to be paid at all!

But let us, for the time being, just accept the generality that “A preacher should not make any more than the average member makes.” Does it therefore follow that the preacher ought to make as much as the average member makes? If that be the case, I am sure that Brother Norman Midgette will be delighted to learn, when he reads this issue of Truth Magazine, that the Westside congregation is going to give him a $3800 raise this year! If we are going to use this “average member” as the criterion by which to decide how much we are going to pay a preacher, then let us smoke out this “average member” and see how much he is making.

Income and expenses vary greatly from one part of the country to another. But I would like to see 25 or 30 churches across the nation do a similar survey just to see what the average member does make. Preachers all over the land might get substantial raises! Let me hasten to add, however, that within the past months brethren in many places have awakened to the fact that they have not even been giving their preacher a cost of living raise, and that preachers’ wages have increased substantially during the past six or eight months. It would appear that brethren who negotiate into their labor contracts annual or semi-annual raises, and cost of living increases in pay, would be thoughtful enough to remember that preachers have to live in the same economy, and that they should receive increases in pay, commensurate with those being received by other members.

Brethren in this country sometime remark that brethren in some of the foreign countries must think that every American is rich. Well, he is! Compared with most of the rest of the world, the American who lives in the worst ghetto of this country, or that exists solely on welfare, is well-off. But most of them do not know it. Some are on welfare because they are too lazy to work, and think society owes them a living. Paul said of these, “if any will not work, neither let him eat” (2 Thess. 3:10). The application of that scriptural principle would lessen considerably the number who are riding on the welfare rolls of America.

When Brother Cogdill and I visited among the Philippine brethren in 1970, we met brethren from about 50 congregations. We did not meet a single brother anywhere who owned any kind of an automobile. We did meet two brethren who had what would be called in this country old “Junker” trucks, but no brother whom we met even had an old “Junker” automobile. On the other hand, we had a major crisis at my house this past week. A week ago Sunday night, I wrecked an automobile. We have been in a terrible bind all week. My son had to have an automobile to get back and forth to do his selling work; my daughters had to have an automobile to get to Berne, Indiana (an 80 mile round-trip), where they work in the printing plant; and my wife had to have an automobile in order to get to town and back to do some Summer work she is doing for the Board of Education. That left poor old Brother Willis stranded! We poor Americans are in bad shape, aren’t we? Here is one family that was severely handicapped because we only had three operable automobiles this past week. Brethren all over this nation like to cry around and feel sorry for themselves and say, ABut we are all poor people.@ The truth of the matter is that every faithful brother is rich in faith, and should be rich in good works, and nearly every single one of us is rich in this world’s goods, when compared to the remainder of the world.

In the event that you are going to dispute the figures that characterize the Westside church in Marion, and are going to say, “That may be true in Marion, but it is not true here,” let me suggest first that you do your survey before registering your complaint and protest. I sincerely would like to see similar surveys made by churches in Tampa, Florida; Atlanta Georgia; Birmingham Alabama; Nashville, Tennessee; Little Rock, Arkansas; Louisville, Kentucky; Annandale or Glen Burnie Maryland; Akron Ohio; Cincinnati, Ohio; Detroit, Michigan; St. Louis, Missouri; Kansas City, Missouri; Denver, Colorado; San Diego, California;

Seattle, Washington; Portland, Oregon; Phoenix, Arizona; Tucson, Arizona; Houston, Texas; Dallas, Texas; Los Angeles, California; San Francisco, California, and on and on we could go. Get your members to participate in a survey similar to what we did here in Marion, Indiana, and then if you are willing to do so, it would be interesting to have the report of your survey collated with other such surveys, and a broader report carried later in Truth Magazine. Let’s see if we can find out what this proverbial “average member” of the church does make. And the preachers across the country will probably encourage such a survey, for we have all been hearing for so long that “The preacher should not make more than the average member makes.” Preachers may all be going to receive significant pay increases, or we may find that our Marion figures are much out of line with those compiled from a cross-section of brethren across the Nation. If our pay here is very much higher than it is in other similar cities, knowing brethren as I think I do, I hereby predict that Marion, Indiana is going to have rapid and tremendous influx of population from the East, South, West, and North. In fact, we might soon be able to say that “Marion, Indiana is the fastest growing city in America!” Or else we might find that this proverbial “average member” was not as “average”and as Apoor” as we have all been led to believe that he is. If you brethren elsewhere decide to do such a survey, and are willing to share the results of your reports with other brethren, we would be glad to hear from you.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:42, p. 3-5
August 29, 1974

By Mike Willis

For an introductory study of textual criticism, this book by Ira M. Price would be hard to beat. While I was attending Butler University, the book was used as textbook for one of our classes. The book is divided into these three divisions: (1) The Old Testament, (2) The New Testament, and (3) The English Bible. Price spent some time in dealing with the types of manuscript errors which appear in the extant texts, introducing his student to the problems of the textual critic.

In the section on the Old Testament, the author discussed the. types of materials used for writing, the best surviving Hebrew manuscripts, and the importance and use of the early translations of the Old Testament (such as the LXX, other Greek versions, Latin, Syriac, etc.) in the textual criticism of the Old Testament. This book was written before much could be definitely stated about the Dead Sea Scrolls’ influence on the study of Old Testament criticism. Although Price does refer to the scrolls, better works are available. Under this section of the book, Price also discusses the apocrypha.

In his discussion of the New Testament, Price followed the same- general outline as he followed with reference to the Old Testament-he discussed the materials, the best extant Greek manuscripts and the value of the various versions to the study of New Testament textual criticism. However, under this section a brief history of textual criticism is included to acquaint the reader with the men and the work done in this field as well as the general rules followed in determining which is the best reading in a given text. In his concluding statement for this section of the book, Price said,

“On the other hand, the multiplication of witnesses and variants attest the tremendous importance of the New Testament in the early centuries and really guarantees the general integrity of its text. Only 400 or so of the 150,000 variants affect the sense, and of these perhaps 50 are of real significance. But no essential teaching of the New Testament is greatly affected by them” (p. 222).

In the last section, Price discussed the history of our English Bible from the earliest introduction of Christianity into England in 597 A.D. to the Revised Standard Version in 1952 (the date for the publication of its Old Testament section). Some of the precursors of the King James Version. such as the Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Genevan, etc., versions, are discussed and their influences on the King James Version noted. The reviews of the translation of the King James Version, the Revised Version, and the Revised Standard Version, as well as of some of the better known modern speech translations, are excellent.

A word of caution should be added to this review. Price accepted the liberal position with reference to the canonization of the Scriptures. Therefore, several of his comments need to be watched, weighed and compared with works of a similar nature by conservative scholars. However, the book is still worth its cost and is tremendously useful as an introduction to the field of textual criticism and acquainting oneself with the ancestry of our English Bible.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:42, p. 2
August 29, 1974

By Donald P Ames

In Acts 8:12 we find, “But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike” (all quotes from NASB). Now, if the preaching of the “kingdom of God” was “good news” then, certainly we too should be interested in it, seeing that it is the fulfillment of that which was spoken by Daniel in Dan. 2:44-45.

However, to preach concerning the kingdom of God is not regarded by all as “good news” to be readily received. The premillennialists in various denominational groups (and a few brethren as well) argue the kingdom of God has not yet come, but refers to something the Lord will set up on earth when He comes again. The Mormons teach it was supposed to be ushered in during the mid 1800’s and the Jehovah Witnesses claim it did not begin until 1914, Like the premillennialists, many of the Jews are still looking forward to its being established at some future date. If we can show, however, that what Philip preached was the fulfillment of what Daniel prophesied, it follows all these men are sadly deceived and deluded regarding the nature and establishment of the kingdom of God.

To Be Established By God

One of the first things affirmed by Daniel is that “the God of heaven will set up a kingdom.” To illustrate the spiritual nature of it, he also reminded king Nebuchadnezzer that the stone was “cut out of the mountain without hands.” Certainly we can see this was not going to be something of man’s doings, but rather clearly an act of God. When the Jews sought to take Jesus by force and make Him;their king (Jn. 6:15), Jesus not only withdrew, but taught a great spiritual lesson to rid Himself of those seeing only fleshly relationships (Jn. 6:66). Had Jesus desired to set up a political, earthly kingdom, this would have been the “golden opportunity.” Jesus’ refusal to do so demonstrates this kingdom was not of an earthly nature, nor dependent on the will of man. Is it any wonder then that Daniel could boldly affirm: “the dream is true, and its interpretation is trustworthy.”

Jesus further demonstrated the unique nature of His kingdom when He affirmed, “My kingdom is not of this world (does not partake of the nature of earthly kingdoms, DPA). If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered` up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this’ realm.” The fact He claimed, “the kingdom of God is in your midst” (Luke 17:21) also shows that it was not intended to be of an earthly nature, but different.

In fact, if one would but pause and reflect upon it, the whole teaching of the New Testament is against an earthly kingdom as sought by some today. Paul refers to the fact we are “citizens” of a new kingdom (Eph. 2:19, Phil. 3:20), and Peter refers to us as “a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession” (1 Pet. 2:9). Since He “has made (past tense) us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father” (Rev. 1:6, 5:10; Cf. 1 Pet. 2:5,9), it follows this kingdom must have been in existence during the days of the apostles. Yet, at the same time we are commanded to be in subjection to the authorities and powers that be (Rom. 13:1-2,, Titus 3:1). Can a man be subject to the laws of two earthly kingdoms at the same time? Or, does he observe, associate with and support but one? The double citizenship of Christians clearly demands we understand one of these kingdoms must be of a different nature. (We might also point out here that our citizenship in the kingdom of God also requires that a kingdom exist-else how could we be “citizens” in it?) Thus, it follows that we learn one is a spiritual kingdom and the other a physical kingdom.

In Days Of Roman Empire

Another stumbling block these false teachers encounter is that Daniel prophecied the kingdom of God would be set up during the days of the Roman empire. He did not affirm someday, 2,000 years later, another Roman empire like the original would be set up (as some claim), but rather “in the days of those kings. . .the dream is true, and its intrepretation is trustworthy.” If God failed to do what Daniel foretold, the dream was not “true,” the interpretation thereof was not “trustworthy,” and Daniel is found to be a false prophet and liar (Deut. 18:20-22).

Turning to the New Testament, we find both John and Jesus teaching that the kingdom of God is “at hand” (Matt. 3:2, Mark 1:15). Now if it were “at hand” then, it would be “in the days of, those kings” and certainly not referring to something to be set up in the 1800’s, 1914, or later. No wonder it was “good news” to those of Samaria (Acts 8:12).

“But,” someone objects, “that was before the Jews rejected Jesus.” To so claim would make the kingdom of God dependent on man and not God (and what would stop the Jews from rejecting Him again the next time, or the time after that?). Jesus promised His disciples, “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who ale standing here who shall not taste of death until they see he kingdom of God after it has’ come with power” (Mark 9:1). If this statement were made before the Jews had decided to reject and crucify Jesus, then one of three things must be true: (1) some of the apostles are still living or did until it was set up, (2) Jesus later made a: correction of this teaching, or (3) Jesus lied about it. We know the apostles are not living today. There is no record of the second point, and Peter denied the third (1 Pet. 2:22). Therefore we must conclude sonrne of the apostles lived to see the kingdom of God in their day! Actually, if we were to look back to Mark 8:31, we can see Jesus was already aware of His rejection and death before ever making that statement (see also Matt. 16:18-19, 21, 28).

Since the kingdom of God was “at hand@ ( Mark 1:15), to be set up “in the days of those kings” (Dan. 2:44), and to come during the life time of the apostles “with power” (Mark 9:1), it follows if we can now find out when this “power” came, them we could find out when the kingdom actually was established. In Acts 1:8 Jesus pointed out they would receive this special “power” when they rectiived the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:14 shows us when they received the Holy Spirit-and the power-and the establishment of the kingdom which was to accompany it.

Related Points

But let us also consider some other points in addition to the above. If the kingdom of God would not be set up for some 2,000 years or more, why did Jesus “waste” the time of Nicodemus by telling him how to get into it? Why not watit and let him enjoy the “second chance”? Jesus should have instead told Nicodemus what he needed to do to be saved before the kingdom was in existence. The truth is, His reply shows the “at hand” nature of the kingdom of God.

Again in Matt. 6:33 He instructed, “seek first His kingdom and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added to you.” But, how can one seek something that is not even going to be set up for 2,000 years yet in the future?

The future-kingdom theorists also make the reply of Jesus in Luke 9:62 seem very foolish. Why should this man be concerned about the kingdom of God if he were not even going to live long enough to see it established?

Again, Jesus readily acknowledged being “king of the Jews” (Matt. 27:11-the goal he was to obtain then), and the disciples were later accused of still teaching there was another “king” (Acts 17:7, Cf. John 19:12). Would this have been likely if the kingdom were over 2,000 years in the future? Who told those in Athens about this “king”? Why did not Paul deny it if the kingdom were not in existence? Jesus also laid claim to being king in Matt. 19:28 (Cf. Titus 3:5) and that His kingdom exists here on this earth (Rev. 5:10, Cf. 1 Pet. 2:5,9). He further affirmed He now rules from the throne of God on high (Rev. 3:21, Acts 2:30-33) in whose army we engage in a spiritual warfare (Eph. 6:10-20) until the end of time (2 Pet. 3). If the kingdom is still in the future, why was this teaching so prevalent even long after the death of Jesus Christ? Did the Holy Spirit fail to guide the apostles into “all truth” (John 16:13)?

During the days following His resurrection (Acts 1:3), Jesus “wasted” His time by talking about a kingdom that had now been rejected (per future-kingdom teachers). One would surely think Jesus ought to have realized His disciples needed teaching pertaining to the church (“set up as a substitute”???) rather than talking about a kingdom that they would never live to see anyway. Interestingly enough, it was during that forty days in which He taught them “things concerning the kingdom of God” that He also taught them the great commission (Mark 16:16, Matt. 28:18-20), so if this pertains to the kingdom of God, we are left without even a plan of salvation today. Indeed such false teaching casts a reflection upon the very wisdom of God.

However, with all the teaching related to the kingdom being “at hand,” even Jesus’ own disciples, looking for an earthly kingdom like the rest of the Jews (Acts 1:6), began to think He was going to set it up “immediately” when He entered Jerusalem (Luke 19:11-15. (By the way, if it were 2,000 years yet to come, why did they get that impression?) Jesus’ answer clearly demonstrated He had to die first (go to a distant country), then He would receive the kingdom (Acts 2:30-33), and return in final judgment (v. 15). He will not return to receive a kingdom, but to end his reign and return it to the Father-at “the end” (1 Cor. 15:24-25). Again the false teachers are at odds with the Bible.

Furthermore Jesus affirmed He would partake of the Lord’s Supper with the disciples “in My Father’s kingdom” (Matt. 26:29). Yet we find them partaking of it in the church (1 Cor. 11:23-29,10:16). If the kingdom and the church were not one and the same, why did Jesus so instruct Paul to apply Matt. 26 to this situation?

Jesus also affirmed that He had fulfilled “all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44). Did He lie about this statement, meaning he only did part of what God had in mind for Him and would come at a future date to do the rest (John 17:4)? Such is the position future-kingdom theorists put Jesus in. This being so, it also necessitates us returning to the Law of Moses (Matt. 5:17-18) since all is not “fulfilled.” But, since the Law was abolished on the cross (Col. 2:14, Rom. 7:1-4, Eph. 2:14-16), it follows He must have accomplished His mission, and therefore all prophecies related to the establishment of the kingdom of God must be fulfilled as well.

We find early Christians were in the kingdom of God (Col. 1:13, !Rev. 1:9, 5:9-10). Thus we know that “at hand” could not mean 2,000 years in the future. Some of Paul’s associates were called “fellow-workers for the kingdom of God.” (Col. 4:11-How could they work for that which would not exist for 2,000 years?) Others were rebuked for having the wrong attitude about the kingdom (Rom. 14:16-18) and still others were to be barred from it by the practice of various sins (Gal. 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Eph. 5:4-5). Such warnings would be useless unless the kingdom of God did exist and they were affected by it.

Since the terms of entry (John 3:5) and the results (Col. 1:13) were, associated with the identical marks of the church (Acts 2:38, 41, 47; 1 Cor. 12:13), we readily see the two are not separate, but the same institution referred to by different descriptions (and used interchangeably in Matt. 16:18-19). All teaching related to the kingdom being set up points to Acts 2:1-4, yet we find the church coming into existence there (v. 47), and following this date all teaching related to either the kingdom or the church pointing backwards. Thus we are forced to conclude they are one and the same institution.

To Fill The Earth

Daniel also prophesied it would fill the whole earth (Dan. 2:35), and “consume” or “put an end to all these kingdoms.” This was the very point of Paul’s teaching in Rom. 10:18, Col. 1:6 and 1:23. The early church went everywhere “preaching the word” (Acts 8:4) and this, in turn, included the “good news about the kingdom of God” as a part of their preaching Christ (Acts 8:5,12). No wonder wherever they went, they were accused of teaching: loyalty to another king than Caesar by their enemies (Acts 17:7).

To Stand Forever

The last point mentioned by Daniel is that “it will itself endure forever” and that “that kingdom will not be left for another people.” Not only does this separate it from earthly kingdoms, but returns the reign of God directly over His people (see 1 Sam. 8:7, Isa. 9:6-7, Acts 2:30-33). Since Jesus now reigns on the throne of God and David (1 Kings 2:12, 1 Chron. 29:23), He has “all authority” (Matt. 28:18, Eph. 1:2123) and there is nothing lacking, save He who gave it to Him – (1 Cor. 15:27). In fact, God Himself testified to the eternal reign of Christ in Heb. 1:8-“But of the Son He says, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever.’ ” Paul affirms we have a kingdom which can never be destroyed (Heb. 12:28) and that Christ is to reign till “the end” (1 Cor. 15:24).

But, if Jesus is to deliver it up, how can it be eternal? Simply in that it will, always be ruled by God (Deity) henceforth (John 1:1-3, Heb. 1:8). Thus it will never be left to another and the throne of God (Seat of Authority) returns to God as direct ruler over His people.

Friend, do not let some false teacher deprive you of the “good news of the kingdom of God” by a false and unscriptural theory, drawn up by man, that denies the existence of His kingdom. Rather, like those of Samaria, believe the word of God and obey it (“when they believed … they were being baptized” – Acts 8:12), and Jesus will wash your sins away (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 22:16), translate you into His kingdom (Col. 1:13, Acts 2:47), and grant unto you the blessed hope of eternal life (Titus 3:7; Gal. 3:26-27).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:41, p. 10-12
August 22, 1974

By Earl E. Robertson

Introduction

In the early days of Christianity, Barnabas and Saul left Antioch in Syria to preach the gospel in Asia, travelling as far as Derbe (Acts 13 and 14). Then they returned visiting nearly all the places where they had preached on the trip, “confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith.” After a while they returned to Antioch, and gathered the church together, to rehearse all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles (Acts 14:27). After such manner Brother Larry R. Hafley and I spent thirty-five days (the latter part of April and the first part of May) in the Philippines, in which, we also preached Christ. Sixty-two adults were baptized in the services where we spoke. Others were baptized in meetings other than the ones in which we spoke. Several were restored to the Lord.

We sought only to accomplish good, though Brother Reuel Lemmons, Editor of the Firm Foundation, said in the May 28, 1974 issue of his paper our efforts were “divisive.” He wrote, “Work in the Philippines has suffered somewhat through the divisive efforts of brethren who push their hobby concerning orphans’ homes and church cooperation, but the church is growing stronger every year and good native leadership is emerging.” The truth of the matter is, the faithful churches are indeed growing! Many liberals are giving up their unscriptural positions and taking a stand for the whole truth. This is the reason for Reuel saying the liberals have “suffered somewhat.” It was shortly after the return of brethren Roy F. Cogdill and Cecil Willis in 1970 that they asked me to consider such a trip also. Almost immediately the Filipino brethren started writing to me asking me to come. The same was happening with Larry. With these invitations from the Filipinos and the overtures in their behalf from Cogdill and Willis, we decided that by the support of brethren and the grace of God we would make the trip in the Spring of 1974. Though we had not been before, and such a venture was against the publicly stated opinion of some, we went and believe that our labors were blessed of God.

Response of Churches

Our hearts were made to take courage at the immediate and overwhelming response with money and words of encouragement to our appeals. It exceeded all expectations. Some brethren knowing of our plans, yet before we asked, sent us support. Rather than sending small amounts, they sent $200.00 to $500.00 checks. This tells me that after more than twenty long years of struggle for the truth, many churches are now becoming free of their building indebtednesses (which was made when they had to leave for truth and conscience); and this money will, therefore, be spent to evangelize. The faithful preaching has not been in vain! All these contributing churches made me think they were eager to assist in this work. Many either wrote or called saying they would be glad to send more if we needed it. Thank God for this kind of faith in God’s plan to save the world.

Reception of The Filipino Brethren

Though the Philippine nation is under martial law and the airports are crowded with armed guards’ with no one but passengers allowed within the terminals, we were met by a great host of brethren at every place. We were not only met in this physical way, but these people were eager to “hear all things commanded of God.” There is a deep sense of personal pride and dignity among our, brethren there; but, we also found them to be reliant upon God. They, unlike Diotrephes, received us “that we might be fellowhelpers to the truth.” We found them in every place to be warm and congenial. They gave us the best of everything they had. We found them going “beyond measure” to meet our needs. We express our gratitude to them for all such expressions for our comfort and protection. There were a few instances where they took special interest for our safety. Some told us their own lives would be given for our safety and wellbeing. Before this trip was completed, we believed them.

Their Dedication and Devotion to The Truth

Let none say the Filipinos are ignorant, lazy, and indifferent! Many of the preachers are former denominational preachers and have good formal academic educations. Some have several earned academic degrees. Most of them speak a number of dialects or languages. Though many of these men barely make it economically, yet, their dedication and devotion to truth is so obvious. Their sacrifice in poverty reminds one of Macedonia (2 Cor. 8:lff). The commitment to the Lord is, in a measurable degree, the secret to the great success the truth is now enjoying in that nation. Nearly without exception, the preachers who are being supportee from the States are not only trying to have sufficiency for their families, but are also paying the rent for the places of worship. And with their meager support, they also find some way to do much benevolent work.

Several in the States are asking, “since so many are being baptized there, are many of them remaining faithful to the Lord:'” The answer is, Yes. The Filipinos do not have the materialistic detractions encountered constantly here in our country. They conduct many more services in which the gospel is preached than the average church here. Their worship services last much longer than the services here also. Many home studies are conducted by the preachers in these homes to assist the newly converted ones, Yes, they are making determined efforts to keep the saved saved! And we must remember that these brethren do not get into their air-conditioned cars and quickly arrive at the’ various places of such study,They have uo such means of transportation. They depend upon what public means are extant and upon walking. A very few preachers there have small motor bikes and one a world war two jeep. This is it! We would consider this a handicap, yet, they are able to stay busy in most all areas of that nation preaching the gospel; in debating for the victory of the truth, and giving themselves in strengthening the weak. The dawning of the day finds most of them already at work, and only in the late hours of the night are they able to get into bed. The two things stamped into my mind are: their poverty and sacrifice. Do not underestimate their concern and actions for saving the lost and keeping the’ saved saved.

Places In Particular

Our first work was with the Makati church (Manila). This congregation left the Christian Church through the work of Connie Adams and J. T. Smith. It has elders, and Brother Carlos Azacarraga preaches there. Formerly, these people were denominational, including Azacarraga. He is a graduate of some college in Manila and spent several years preaching for a denomination. He is in close association with Victorio R. Tibayan, Ben Cruz, June R. Salvarierra, Jr., Noli H. Vilamor, Billy Hayuhay, Narciso Romio and others. Twenty-eight were baptized in the Manila work. Our seevices in this series of lectures were conducted in the afternoons and evenings. Several hours were devoted to this each day. Open forums were held after each service. Perhaps the names of Victorio R. Tibayan and Julian C. Felix are more widely known than any of the other preachers in Luzon. Brother Felix works several miles North of Manila in Moncada, Tarlac. He is a close and long-time worker with Romulo B. Agduma in the South. Brother Tibayan is perhaps the ablest, and most often used, debater in Luzon. He preaches in Pasay and Tondo (Manila) and works in many sections of Luzon and the other Islands. These other brethren mentioned are younger in the faith; however, they are rapidly growing in grace and knowledge (cf. 2 Pet. 3:18). Manila is a large metropolis numbering into the millions of souls: These brethren have a lifetime of work before them. The city is growing exceedingly fast, and it seems to me that the brethren are diligent in their efforts to convert people there. They are using what means they have to get the gospel to the lost.

Our second week was spent in Pagadian City. The brethren met us at the airport, being accompanied by Dr. Aurelio M. Mendoza, President of a college in the city. We went immediately to the college and spoke, after which a lengthly open forum was conducted. We feel that good was accomplished. This being the immediate area where the Communists and Muslims had engaged warfare against the people (some saints were murdered), it was felt by the brethren that Larry and I should not stay in any of the local Hotels, but that we should stay in the home of brother Eduardo R; Ramiro. Brother Ramiro is the local preacher and is doing an excellent work. He is a graduate of the school in Zamboanga, a “deceased” liberal college. His wife, Sol, is a local school teacher. Brother Ramiro is able and sacrificial. He has the complete respect and confidence of the brethren and is highly respected by the citizens of Pagadian. Just last year he taught and baptized the whole family of Brother Diosdado L. Aenlle, who for twenty-five years preached in one of the largest denominational churches there. He held the respect and some of the highest offices in that denomination. He lacks three subjects having his third earned academic degree. This man is working closely with Brother Ramiro, and is now directly responsible for theconversion of several. In this area many good, able . men are laboring for the Lord’s cause, among whom I remember: Leonardo J. Lagasca, Wilfredo Samodal, Nebuchadnezzar Calope, Antonio Gunot, Federico Cadungog, Francisco Fallorin, Romeo S. Quesada, Ernesto Canon, and Artemio Labiano.

We found this church to be active, sacrificial, and at peace. For some time they have worshipped in a building, the funds for which were raised by various American saints. One preacher, Ramon G. Carino, would not attend our services and tried to keep others from attending. He ran Brother Samodal out of his house at midnight because Samodal would not listen to his rantings. He meets with less than a “handful,” separate from the Pagadian church, and it seems that he has no influence in that area. This man and his wife came to the airport when we were leaving, and we asked him as to why he would not attend the services. He would give us no answer. Several obeyed the gospel in this Pagadian effort.

When our work was finished in Pagadian, we flew to Davao City and then went by truck to Kidapawan-the present home of Romulo B. Agduma. We found the largest attendance here of all the places we visited. The church in this place is in dire need of a building. They are now seeking financial support from any individual interested in this work. Our services were conducted in the Pilot school on the Eastern edge of the city. Brother Agdurna moved here from M’Lang when the uprising came. The work has done real well, though a major part of brother Agduma’s time is spent in publishing gospel papers. We observed the respect he holds throughout the whole nation from the faithful. He is a humble servant, not a “pope” as some have inferred. Our services in this place were conducted from eight o’clock in the mornings until late in the nights. We feel God blessed these services and that good in the future will result from these labors.

In this part of the Philippine nation we found many great and good servants of the King, among whom are Virgilo B. Villanueva, Ernesto Argueza, Alfredo Bareng, Juanito P. Balbin, and many others. These men not only know the truth, but know how to defend it. They all seem to be busy sowing the seed of the kingdom. The liberals tried some two or three days to hinder our efforts, but were unsuccessful (see brother Hafley’s report concerning this).

When our work was finished here with a number becoming obedient to the faith, we, with tearful and prayful parting, went to Davao City where we spoke to a fine audience. In this city the work was only begun the first part of this year with brother Feliciano Caracas. The church was meeting in his house (many churches there meet in private homes), and the attendance is about thirty. Several have been baptized, and many students attending the various colleges and universities in Davao City have been contacted by brother Caracas and Reuben Agduma, which has resulted in their attending services with this church. Reuben is the son of Romulo and is working with Feliciano while finishing his degree. Upon these two able men rests much responsibility! They are able to meet it. Reuben spent two years in Florida College and has been in school since, hopeful of finishing this year. Feliciano was an instructor for about eight years in the Zamboanga Bible School. He has been recognized both provincially and nationally as a Newsman in newspapers and the radio hook-up. He was chosen as the number two Newsman during the presidential election of President Marcos. He is an excellent speaker, and he has something to say when he gets before an audience. This young man was saved through the efforts of Romulo Agduma and Eddy Ramiro. The future of the Lord’s cause in this great city seems very bright.

We flew from Davao to Manila and spoke to some few congregations around the city for some two days,and then rode a bus some two hundred and thirty miles North to Baguio City. This is the home of Andrew Gawe and his father. Andrew preaches in this city and has lived here for thirty years. He was instrumental in starting the Philippine Bible College (a work of the liberals) and was an instructor in it for ten years. Perhaps, there is more opposition to the preaching of truth in this area than any place else in the Islands. But what these good brethren are able to accomplish against such opposition is heartwarming! Brother Julian C. Felix lives just south of Baguio at Moncada, Tarlac and is exerting much influence for good. Several of the liberal preacher-students coming from this College have been taught the truth, and none know the preaching power of Gawe, Felix and other such good men, as do the liberals at the school. When we arrived in the city we shortly thereafter received a letter from the President of the school, Brother Robert Buchanan. Brother Buchanan and I were in Freed-Hardeman College nearly a quarter-century ago, but had had no correspondence or conversation with each other through intervening years. Though I have worked closely with many of his kin, including his grandparents, uncles and cousins, he chose to address us only as “Mr.” and “Sir.” His letter was arrogant, condescending, and hateful. Though he spoke this way, unwittingly there is revealed throughout his letter the fear of truth and confrontation. Knowing our schedule (it being advertised that our night services would be conducted at 7:30), he told us we could visit him at 7:30 Friday night! He even wrote; “I must say that if you come at a time when I cannot be here, you would not be welcome.” He further wrote, “I must confess that you men and your doctrine do not rank very high on my list of priorities.” Caesar, indeed, hath been eating the dainties of his spoiles! With this attitude there is no question but that the cause of truth will continue to grow in the right direction.

Our services in Baguio were conducted in a large room in denominational facilities. Several came, though I believe our attendance here was the smallest of the places we went. However, I was most surprised to find a great host of men preaching the truth. These came from all directions. Most of these men make their living in various professions. I would hope that in the future more effort, by men from the States, will be given to this section of the Philippines. Some were baptized here, among whom were some two or three preachers. We have hope for the future of the Lord’s work in these Mountain Provinces with men like Gawe, Felix, Damsso Curimao, Virgelio Lacangan, Salvador Alapit, Jose Cruz, Marcos Balaleng, David Gamit, and many others. Many of these are new in the Lord and need time to grow and develop; they need words of encouragement, books, dictionaries, etc., for their use toward this goal. Some of these men need financial support.

With this Baguio effort finished we flew to Manila and then to Olongapo City for a service. Six were baptized in this place. This was the last service we were engaged in. There were other places and names, which, perhaps, should be mentioned in this report, but because of space we must forego.

Conclusion

I feel this trip greatly helped the Philippine work, but I feel it did us much good also. As stated earlier in this article, I do not share the opinion of some that men who have not been there should not go; but I do feel that men who have a rather extensive relationship with the churches over our country should go. In many respects the most good for the Philippine work will be done after the men get back home. The needs there are astronomical due to the fact of the reception of the truth on such a large scale, and this in relationship to their deep poverty. They need wages for their preaching, song books, books and tracts, church buildings, etc. Just small amounts of money, placed in the right hands, can accomplish so much. I appeal to brethren everywhere: be generous in this matter. Several already are responding most favorably. We are, by invitation, telling many churches and individuals what we know about that work. While this great nation of more than forty million souls are so responsive to the overtures of God’s mercy as expressed through preaching, we must meet its challenge. If we may be of any service to you in assisting your judgment-making in this matter, please call upon us.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:41, p. 6-10
August 22, 1974