Truth Magazine

By Lewis Willis

The August 1992 issue of Reader’s Digest (p. 29), in a regular column called “Quotable Quotes,” printed what was identified as a Danish proverb. It said: “Better to ask twice than to lose your way once. It seems to me that there is a lot of wisdom in that statement.

How many times have you ever done something that was wrong, after which you realized you could have saved yourself a lot of trouble had you asked somebody about it? Do we not teach young people to ask questions of those who are older so that they can profit from their experience and wisdom? Even though we try to follow this kind of wise approach to our lives, we frequently get the wrong information when we ask. Have you ever asked someone about something, followed the advice they gave, only to find that the one you asked was wrong? I guess I could go on with these questions… .

The wisdom of the Danish proverb is that you are consulting more than one source. You are getting as much in-put as possible in an effort to avoid a mistake. The application I wish to make regarding “asking” is that we must be careful who we ask. Solomon said, “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Prov. 14:12; 16:25). You might be unfortunate enough to ask two people who would both give you an answer based on how it “seems” to them, only to discover that both are wrong. So, in asking, you need to know on what information or evidence they are basing their view.

The Lord said, “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For everyone that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened” (Matt. 7:7-8). When we ask, we know that what the Lord says will be right. When we seek for answers in the Scriptures, we know that we will find them. The answer to the “issues of life” are to be found in the revelation of divine truth that the Lord gave.

Not every person you ask will give you what the Lord has revealed, so check it out for yourself. Make certain that the Scriptures say what men tell you they say. It is far better to consult the Scriptures twice than to lose your way once. In matters spiritual, to lose one’s way is to lose one’s soul. The soul is too valuable to be lost because of carelessness or indifference (Matt. 16:26). We must be a people who search the Scriptures, studying to learn those things that enable us to stand approved of God (In. 5:39; 2 Tim. 2:15).

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 9 p. 14
May 4, 1995

By P. J. Casebolt

The amount of a preacher’s support may be negotiable. A preacher may choose to forego his right to live of the gospel. But the preacher’s right to live of the gospel, is not arbitrary or negotiable, and a preacher should not be placed in the position of having to defend that right (1 Cor. 9:14).

While the church has made considerable progress in this area during my lifetime, there are still some incongruities and inconsistencies regarding the support of gospel preachers. When I was younger, I was reluctant to address this subject for fear that brethren would think I was preaching for money. But this reluctance also caused me not to teach brethren their duty regarding the support of gospel preaching. As one preacher put it, he did not preach for money, but there were times when he couldn’t preach for lack of it.

There is another aspect of preacher support that needs to be addressed, and while it may be a touchy subject, it will not be resolved by ignoring it. I have given myself wholly to the preaching of the gospel while being only partially supported by the church. I have worked with my hands in order to preach the gospel in places where it was needed. I think that I am in a position to address this subject fairly, both from the standpoint of those who preach and those who support the preaching of the gospel.

The Right to Stop Support

If there is anything more difficult than getting brethren to support a gospel preacher, it is getting them to stop when that preacher has forfeited his right to be supported. When a preacher is soliciting support, he may not be too concerned about the factors which caused brethren to decide in favor of his support. But, when those same brethren decide for any reason, or no one reason in particular to discontinue that support, they are the worst brethren on earth.

Without controversy, fairness should be exercised by both the preacher and his sources of support. Proper notice should be given in keeping with whatever arrangements have been made. But both brethren and the affected preachers need to remember that if churches have a right and the wisdom to commence supporting a preacher, those same churches have the right to discontinue that support. It may just be that brethren decide the support can be more effectively and efficiently used in some other way or place.

But there are times when brethren begin supporting a preacher without investigating the moral or doctrinal qualifications of the one receiving support. Or, they fail to obtain a recommendation from someone they do know. At one time, Paul needed the recommendation of Bamabas (Acts 9:27). Again, brethren can be deceived, or maybe the recipient of the support will change his doctrinal or moral position after he has begun to receive support.

We have known of preachers who divided a local church, quit preaching and assembling with the church, and still accepted support from contributing congregations. One preacher had become immoral, had ceased to support his own family, his wife had gone to work doing laundry for brethren, and the preacher was still trying to locate with other churches. Brethren had checked with other congregations where the preacher had previously lived, and had obtained a lengthy list of things that would disqualify any Christian from receiving the fellowship of faithful brethren. Yet, they were still calling around to see what others knew or thought. When they called me, I told them that they already had enough evidence to convince even the most naive, and that had the preacher lived in Texas he would already be swinging from the nearest cottonwood tree.

Some preachers will change their doctrinal position, knowing full well that supporting brethren would not bid them God speed if they were aware of that change, and even attempt to conceal their position while still accepting support from brethren. Or, it may be that the preacher held that position all along, but spoke in such ambiguous terms that brethren could not determine what his convictions really were.

Why are brethren reluctant to support preachers, especially in distant places? Congregations may have had some unpleasant experiences (such as those mentioned above), and are wary of being stung again. Or, some brethren are too concerned about “how they spend the Lord’s money,” when in reality they are more concerned about how they don’t spend it than how they do spend it.

But, once brethren decide to start supporting a particular preacher, why is it harder for them to stop than it was to start? Are they afraid of repercussions from relatives or friends in the supporting congregation, or from other preachers or congregations? Are they afraid that the sup-ported preacher will cause trouble or divide the church if his support is discontinued? If a preacher would divide the church over such a matter, even if he feels he has been wronged, such a preacher has convicted himself of being unworthy of support, morally or financially.

I have preached in my home congregation more than once for less wages than what some preacher in a “mission field” was receiving, yet I encouraged brethren to support other gospel preachers. I have recommended preachers for support both in this country and in foreign lands. I have also recommended that brethren not support, or discontinue supporting, preachers who did not live up to their responsibilities either morally or doctrinally.

One of the safeguards which the Lord built into the mission and organization of the church is that of autonomy. Congregations not only have the right to decide whom they will support and when, but they also have the freedom to decide whom not to support and when not to do it.

If preachers, including myself, pursue a course which the supporting church or churches, local or distant, deem to be unworthy of continued support, then congregations need to exercise their freedom of autonomy. If they are wise enough to initiate support in the first place, they ought to be wise enough to know when to discontinue that support. And their judgment in both instances needs to be respected, even if we disagree with that judgment.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 9 p. 13-14
May 4, 1995

By Dan King Sr.

How different our perspective can be in viewing people today and those of the past. We have a tendency as human beings to glorify the former days and to set the men and women of those times upon pedestals and see them as almost superhuman. Things now are never precisely as they were back then. People now are never as they were in “the days of yore.” Or, so we tend to think.

In reality things are pretty much as they have always been. I do not mean to say that we have not made considerable progress technologically, for obviously we have. Civilization looks very different on the surface from the way it looked even one hundred years ago, let alone a thousand years ago. But when you look below the surface, things are very similar to the way things were thousands of years hence. Public officials tend to be corrupt; government does not have the confidence of the people; taxes are too high; prices have gone up and wages have gone down; hostilities and hatreds abound; tyrants and despots threaten world peace; the world looks like a very dangerous place. What else is new?

Those of us who respect the Bible and take it as our rule of faith, read of the heroes of those times and wonder sometimes at their courage in the face of all odds. It is only when we read, Elijah for example, “was a man of like passions with us” (Jas. 5:17), that we recognize that they must have felt the same fears and frustrations that we do. As the writer James points to the prophets “for an example of suffering and of patience,” he says that “we call them blessed that endured” (5:10, 11). We respect them, admire them, and hold them up as examples for all generations.

So did the Jews of Jesus’ day. They admired and respected such saints as Abraham, Moses, and Elijah. They thought of them as heroes of faith. And, they thought of themselves as sons of the prophets. But the Lord said of them, “You build the sepulchres of the prophets, and garnish the tombs of the righteous, and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we should not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’ Wherefore ye witness to yourselves, that ye are sons of them that slew the prophets…” (Matt. 23:29-31). In the end, they murdered the Son of God. Indeed, they were not “sons of the prophets” but the “sons of them that slew the prophets.” It would have been hard for these religious zealots ever to have seen themselves in this role. But that is what the Lord called them and that is what they were.

Our day is not peopled with inspired prophets. All we can do at the present time is quote Scripture and cite Holy Writ as the authority for our preaching and teaching. The Bible is the God-breathed, and authoritative will of heaven (2 Tim. 3:15-17). When men truly speak from the Bible today, they speak with all the authority of Jehovah God, Jesus Christ, and his apostles and prophets. “If any man speak, let him speak as the Oracles of God” (I Pet. 4:11). So long as they contend earnestly for “the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), their words are those of God. If they add to the message or delete anything from it, then the condemnation of heaven rests upon them and they ought not be respected or even given a hearing among the sons of men (Rev. 22:18-19; Deut. 4:2).

We must be on guard against this human tendency to “call them blessed that endured” and yet, by our actions in the present time, prove ourselves the “sons of them that slew the prophets.” Paul warned Timothy that “the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:3). By its very nature and essence, the Word of the Lord condemns the sins of every generation, ours included. Our own attitude toward God’s reproving Word and its messengers establishes which camp we are in.

Here are three pieces of scriptural advice which should help us to keep on the proper path:

1. Be sure we are really listening to what is being said. Too often we jump to conclusions before the speaker has finished his thought. The Pharisees pre-judged Jesus this way, and here is what the Lord said about it: “Therefore speak I to them in parables; because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And unto them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall in no wise understand; And seeing ye shall see, and shall in no wise perceive: For this people’s heart is waxed gross, And their ears are dull of hearing, And their eyes they have closed; Lest haply they should perceive with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And should turn again, And I should heal them” (Matt. 13:13-15).

2. Know that how we hear others distinguishes us as children of truth or of error. It branded the enemies of Jesus as enemies of God: “He that is of God heareth the words of God: for this cause ye hear them not, because ye are not of God” (John 8:47). Likewise, rejecting the words of the apostles separated them from those who hearkened to them, and distinguished the latter as the faithful: “They are of the world: therefore speak they as of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he who is not of God heareth us not. By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error” (I John 4:5-6).

3. Know that God’s word must be the final court for judgment of the words of all men. Every false teacher and every counterfeit prophet tries in some way to take the eyes of his followers off the Bible. Either he attempts to subvert its proper understanding, or he wants to discredit it, so that he may be looked upon as the authority among those who are his disciples. God’s true nobility are rather like the people described in Acts 17:11: “Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of the mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so.” God’s Word should decide for us what is true of the words of men.

Giving lip-service to the cause of the ancient prophets was insufficient for the Pharisees of Jesus’ day, and it will not suffice for us. Rather, having the courage to decry the sins of our own time, in our families, in our congregations, yea, in our own lives  this is what makes us worthy to “call them blessed that endured”! Let us pray that we may do so with sincerity and prove it by our actions!

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 9 p. 3-4
May 4, 1995

By Carl McMurray

No, I’m not speaking of “an open door” for evangelism, as the term is generally used, but of a back door left open for the devil. It is one which I would like to close here. In a recent article on gambling, carried in this magazine (39:2, p. 38, “The Gambling Pendulum”), I addressed three areas of this subject. Those three areas were.. . misconceptions concerning gambling, its past history, and the scriptural wrong doing of such activities. The thought behind the article and my arguments were aimed specifically at “created” risks where “stakes” were deliberately “chanced” and profit could only come at the “loss” of another. Such activities as lotteries, slot machines, card games, pools, and betting on such things as horse or dog races would all fall into this category, as well as a host of other things.

Without rehashing that article, my scriptural objections were…

1. It is covetousness (Eph. 5:5), i.e. desiring that which belongs to another.

2. It violates the law of love (Matt. 22:37-39), i.e. takes the loser’s money without exchange of goods or services.

3. And it encourages a love of money (1 Tim. 6:9-10) with all its accompanying snares and temptations.

Any time anyone buys a chance, a ticket, a donation, or a number in which the “winnings” will come from a “pot” that is made up of others losing, he falls prey to the devil’s schemes listed above.

One paragraph in the article, however, has drawn some attention and needs some clarification. Some seemed to have keyed in on the word “donation,” with the under-standing that I believe this term changes things. It does not. As mentioned above, it matters not to me whether it is called a chance, a ticket, or a donation. Calling it a “donation” for a good cause does not change one iota of the above situation, and I did not intend for my use of the term to be taken that way. The focus of my article was to show where the supposed “winnings” come from, that is, actually from the pockets of “losers” and that this is a mistreatment of our fellow man.

The other term that caught the eye of several was the term “raffle.” Some who contacted me seemed to think that I was saying that “raffles” were different from “lotteries” and so were OK. I was sent more than one dictionary definition showing me that raffles are just a form of lottery and encouraging me to correct my error. Once more, I did not say this. I specifically named types of raffles where the “pot” was a donated prize from some business (purchasing advertising in this way), rather than a common pool made up of “losers’ money. I also specifically said that my “exception” was only to the charge of “covetousness.” I did not then, nor do I now, believe that it is “coveting” to desire goods which a business may offer up for customers in any way that business chooses. That business can overcharge, undercharge, or give away its product any way they choose. If you were misled by the above terms please go back and see if my specific qualifications mentioned above are not present.

My point above is just to say that there are different types of “raffles.” I realize that many (most?) are identical to lotteries. I thought that I qualified myself enough in the article so that it could be seen I was only talking about one form, and only exempting it from one of my charges. Obviously that did not get across since several wrote, seemingly with the idea that I was defending anything called a “raffle” or a “donation.” I was not. If that did not get across, then perhaps I should add a couple of thoughts to this discussion.

First, neither I nor my family participate in any form of lottery, chance, raffle, or donation ticket purchases. There may be some convoluted form of “raffle” that I would not be willing to call my brother a sinner for participating in, but I won’t even buy a ticket for that! The reason is appearance. Being a “salt” and “light” influence in the world demands that we be aware of our example. I do not think that we have to bow down to every brother’s unlearned opinion or treat the world with “kid gloves” in case they “might” misunderstand what we’re doing. But, when a practice is as prevalent and accepted as gambling is, and it’s going to take a financial audit to determine whether buying a chance is sinful or not, then maybe it’s time to wise up and back away. Even if one is not violating a specific law of God with his practice, to give the appearance of such is to dim one’s light for the Lord. To me this would make every form of “chancing” mentioned above wrong.

Secondly, in a recent phone discussion with Keith Greer, an interesting point was made. Keith works with the Lord’s church in Las Vegas. If there is one among us who has dealt with this problem, it is him and I appreciate his thoughts on the matter. If you want to hear some honor stories about gambling, talk to brother Greer. After agreeing with my statement above that there are different forms of “raffles,” he made the point that “the devil uses camouflage” (a paraphrased quote). Innocent gambling (if there is such a thing) “opens the door” for that which takes control. Amen, I agree absolutely. Satan uses “little” sins to sear one’s conscience and ensnare one deeper. My understanding of gambling is that it is like pornography and other moral sins in that it falls into the category of addictive-compulsive behavior. It has the power to ruin us. One may say, “My lottery ticket at the gas station doesn’t control me,” but we’re helping to encourage a practice that does take over the lives of many. And this stars at the lowest level of encouraging that “gambling feeling” and covetousness. If one is not willing to believe me, listen to a recent news item in the Washington Watch (Feb. 21, 1995). “Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) has introduced H.R. 497 on Jan. 11 to establish a national blue-ribbon commission to investigate the impact of rapid expansion of gaming.” The reason behind this is because “reports of increased divorce rates, child abuse, gambling addiction, and broken families are spurring broader concern.” “23 states now have casinos and Americans will bet $400 billion in 1995.” Tell me again that gambling is not a problem.

To sum up then, in addition to the first three arguments I gave to determine that the practice of gambling was sinful I would also add two additional ideas. The Christian should avoid all forms of this practice for the sake of his appearance in condoning evil and the temptation to be-come ensnared.

Lastly, I feel the need to urge some caution here. I hesitate to say anything, because I do not intend in any way to rebuke brethren. I do appreciate the concern and spirit manifested in most of the letters I received. But, I believe that some may be exercising great conviction without really knowing why. More than one who wrote me seemed to feel that “wanting” something, or even wanting some-thing at a “bargain” price, was the same as “coveting.” This is not a “gambling” issue. Many sale watchers and garage sale shoppers would argue with this I believe. Others thought the sin of “gambling” included such activities as sporting events (golf tournaments were specifically named) where one paid a fee to enter and compete, free prizes given away by business, door prizes, etc. Once again, I believe we have pushed our definitions to the limit. If the above are truly matters of conviction, then let me urge the ones who believe such to be diligent in their practice of such. But, I do not believe that arguments like this can be scripturally justified and if we try to “bind” these things on others, then in my humble opinion, only harm can result. I believe we should exercise some judgment before labeling another’s heart as “covetous” because he sees some practice in a different light than we do.

Once more, I do appreciate the concern of those who responded and the opportunity granted by Mike Willis to add these thoughts, and close this “back door.” I hope they clarified my position.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 9 p. 15-16
May 4, 1995