Truth Magazine

By Joe R. Price

The following announcement was seen in a recent bulletin from the Salt Lake Valley Church of Christ:

Please don’t feed the ants: Anyone who brings food into the building is asked to be mindful of the fact that we have a severe ant problem. Please be sure to clean up the area in which food is served and make sure any to be left is sealed in air-tight containers (The Salt Lake Messenger, from the Salt Lake Valley Church of Christ, May 30, 1993).

I am sorry to hear of the ant problem these folks seem to be having. Ants are pesky things. And diligent, too. “Go to the ant, thou sluggard; Consider her ways, and be wise: Which having no chief, overseer, or ruler, provideth her bread in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest” (Prov. 6:6-8). It seems the ants have been harvesting their “bread” at the Salt Lake Valley Church of Christ with a good deal of success.

The suggested remedy for this ant problem is to clean up the food-serving areas and make sure the food left behind is tightly sealed. We all know this helps reduce the chances of ants getting to their next meal, but someone is sure to forget, and as quickly as they do those tireless creatures will once again make their presence known. Therefore, I would like to propose to these brethren a remedy which, if observed, will greatly reduce their ant problem. In fact, if this precaution is taken, in all likelihood the ants will soon go looking for their “bread” somewhere else. The solution is found in 1 Corinthians 11:22 and 34. “What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not? What shall! say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I praise you not…. If any man is hungry, let him eat at home; that your coming together be not unto judgment.”

You see, there is a greater problem here than not feeding the ants. It is one of not feeding the people! It is a foregone conclusion in the denominations around us that a part of the work of a church is to provide social gatherings for its members and the community. Indeed, to suggest that it is not the work of the local church to plan, promote and provide social and recreational activities is viewed as narrow-minded to some and blasphemous to others. However, we are content to let the Bible answer the issue for us. And, we plead with our brethren in Salt Lake and elsewhere to respect what the Bible teaches on this important subject.

The local church has God-given work it is to be doing. Briefly stated, its work is evangelism to the lost (1 Thess.1:8; Phil. 1:5), the spiritual edification of its members (Acts 2:42; 20:28-32; Eph. 4:11-16), and benevolence to needy saints (Acts 4:34-35; 6:1-6; 11:27-30; 1 Tim. 5:16). This is the sum of the work authorized in the New Testament by Jesus for the local church. Since we are to function only under the authority of our head (who is Christ Eph. 1:22-23; 5:24; Col. 3:17), we should be content with the work he has instructed us to perform in our congregational capacity.

But, for a variety of reasons, brethren have had trouble being content with the simplicity of the gospel as it relates to the work of the church. Whether it is to “be like the nations around them” (I Sam. 8:5,20) or to draw people together in the hope of teaching them the gospel and/or fostering improved relationships (Jn. 6:26-27,44-45), the result is the same. Additions to the work of the church are made. Disobedience of 1 Corinthians 11:22 and 34 occurs. Good motives behind the church-sponsored and promoted dinners, get-togethers and “fellowship meals” do not change these facts. The end does not justify the means (Rom. 3:8). We must do God’s work, not our own (Eph. 2:10).

One common response to the foregoing position of no church-sponsored social functions is frequently stated thusly: “You are misapplying 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. The Corinthians’ problem was that they were abusing the Lord’s supper by introducing their common meals into the assembly. The church can promote `fellowship meals,’ etc. as long as these activities are kept separate from the assembly.” It is true that the Corinthians were abusing the Lord’s supper (vv. 20-21). Nobody denies that. But please look carefully at the remedy the apostle prescribes. He did not say “separate your church-sponsored meals from the assembly.” He did say you have houses to eat and drink in (v. 22). He did say let the hungry man eat at home (not at the “fellowship meal” in the “fellowship hall” after services). The remedy was to remove all common meals from their “coming together” (vv. 33-34). The work of the church is spiritual, not physical (cf. Rom. 14:17). Let the home supervise common meals (vv. 20,34). Let the church “come together” to partake worthily of the Lord’s supper (vv. 20,23-33).

Another often heard reason legitimizing church-endorsed social gatherings is this: “Only individuals are providing the food, etc. The church is not involved, since none of its money is being used to occasion the event.” Honestly now, were not individuals the ones who were providing the food in 1 Corinthians 11? Of course they were, for the Scripture says “… for in your eating each one taketh before other his own supper… ” (v. 21). Further-more, the church is using its money when its building and facilities are used for the separate activity for pot-luck dinners, “fellowship meals” and the like. Since the building expedites (aids) the church in evangelism, edification and benevolence (these are authorized works for the local church, as noted above). The authority for church-promoted social activities is lacking in the Scriptures (Col. 3:17; 2 Jn. 9). Therefore, to use the building for such is to use it to aid in an unscriptural work.

Other defenses are offered, but when they have all been heard, 1 Corinthians 11:22 and 34 remain. They are clear and decisive. Let the church be about the scriptural business of honoring the Lord’s death and promoting gospel preaching and teaching. Let the home be about the business of feeding the stomach and arranging social gatherings. God’s way does work. We need not tamper with it. We ask our brethren in Salt Lake and elsewhere to come back to the Bible way and stop adding to God’s word and work (Jer. 6:16; 10:23; Matt. 7:21-23). When you follow God’s way, you will not have to worry about feeding the ants. The church’s full attention can be given to feeding souls the word of God (Acts 20:28; Deb. 5:12-14; 1 Pet. 2:2).

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 1 p. 8-9
January 5, 1995

By J. Wiley Adams

Most of the time the above title will be a misnomer for many preachers will never own the houses they live in here and there as they do local work. It is a common practice for many local churches to buy a residence for whoever is preaching for them to live in. Let me hasten to say that I find no fault with this practice as such. It falls under the category of preacher support, for which we have authority in the Scriptures. 1 Corinthians 9:14 says “Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.” Other passages could be added to this. Whether the preacher’s support is in the form of cash, benefits, or facilities will stand as a matter of judgment. Preachers may support themselves totally through a secular,job, or, by making up the difference in church support by secular work (Paul made a few tents), or by accepting total support from the local church or churches. This preacher has done all three.

My purpose in writing on this matter is to point out some disadvantages both to the local church and to those preachers who live in a church-owned house. While we (preachers included) are to walk by faith and not by sight, it is not to be through faith only.

In the normal course of events preachers will grow old. What security will they have as far as a place to live when that time arrives. Many preachers grow old and have to move out of a house they have lived in for many years while knowing full well that day would arrive. What will they do? What will happen to them? Where will they live?

In fact, since preacher’s houses are considered to be part of their wages, they must pay taxes on such. One place I preached, some of the brethren wanted me to raise full outside support, including enough to buy a house and put the house in the name of the church. I refused on the grounds that if I was going to buy a house out of salary that the house would be mine. Some were unhappy about this! They wanted me to buy a house and deed it to the church, then later on when I moved to another place the church would have a house. Do I have a point in all this some-where?to pay preachers a total amount out of which they can buy or rent their own place of abode. (Then if he is not satisfied with where he lives it is his own fault.) This total amount should be enough for them to be able to do this. In this way preachers can build an equity wherever they go and have somewhere to live when they grow old.

Furthermore, this can help the churches as well. A house needs maintenance and this can get expensive and not a little sticky. A house will have normal wear and tear and it can become a burden to the local church. Many churches are good landlords but some are not. If the preacher tries to get some needed work done on the house, he is sometimes accused of wanting to live too high on the hog. One place built a house “hard by the synagogue” (not the best thing to do for various reasons) and one brother who lived in the country and had outside facilities thought the preacher’s house should be no better than his. It was pointed out to him that, among other things, the city laws required indoor facilities in town. He was still unhappy.

Sometimes the only substantial maintenance done on a house is “between preachers.” Then the cost is so high that sometimes the former preacher is accused of not taking care of the place. It might be that things need repair or replacement that will cost so much the preacher hates to bring it up. Then, again, jealousy can arise in the church if too much is spent for the comfort of the preacher and his family.

So, brethren, whenever possible please pay the preacher enough so he can furnish his own house and can feel more secure in his old age. He deserves this for his services to the churches. It will also eliminate the problems that can arise due to maintenance. The church will be out of the real estate business and the preacher will be in the real estate business.

Does this make any sense at all, brethren? Please consider these thoughts.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 24, p. 11
December 15, 1994

By P.J. Casebolt

“The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his Lord. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master . . .” (Matt. 10:24,25).

In its Bible usage, the term disciple is easily defined, both in the original language and in English. A disciple is a learner, a pupil, a follower. Jesus said that a disciple who continued in his word would be a disciple “indeed” (Jn. 8:31). While all of the Lord’s disciples forsook him at one time or another in their lives (cf. Matt. 26:56), they later learned the full significance of a disciple being “as his master.”

While most references to disciples in the New Testament are to Christ’s disciples, there are other kinds of disciples. John the Baptist had disciples, but he taught his pupils to follow Christ (Jn. 1:35-37). But the Pharisees also had disciples (Mk. 2:18), and Paul warned the elders of Ephesus, “Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:30).

In history, many teachers have recruited disciples in social, political, and religious philosophies. But in all instances there has been the unmistakable relationship between the master and those who embrace his discipline, or instruction. Some of the more recent examples are Jim Jones and David Koresh, and their fanatical, suicidal disciples. But whether discipleship includes temporary or eternal consequences (or both), we need to take a close look at this principle.

We all have access to a history of the Lord’s church, both by inspired (the Bible), and uninspired (secular) accounts. But some of us are old enough to have seen some of that history unfold in our brief but often memorable view of events which have troubled the body of Christ. And in nearly every instance, there was the teacher/disciple principle at the root or at the center of those controversies which has adversely affected the peace and unity of God’s people.

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, some of us began to come in contact with the doctrines that the church and kingdom were two separate entities, established at different times. Out of these subversive doctrines grew the “A.D. 70 Doc-trine”  that Christ returned the second time at the destruction of Jerusalem.

We knew who the preachers were that advocated these false theories, but it was next to impossible to get them to define their position clearly, or to make a public proclamation of their real beliefs. When one was asked why he did not teach his doctrine publicly, he said that the brethren were not yet educated sufficiently to permit a public declaration of the doctrine.

While continuing to promote their heresies privately, these preachers enjoyed the fellowship and respectability of many congregations, and played the martyr complex for all it was worth. They were being “misunderstood, falsely accused, and persecuted” by preachers who had some ulterior motive. By the time these false teachers and their disciples were identified, the damage was done, and the body of Christ divided. And to my knowledge, not one of those false teachers of their disciples ever acknowledged his subversive methods of using “sleight of men and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph. 4:14).

After advocating the “no Bible class/no located preacher” position along with its attendant satellite inconsistencies and consequences, an-other preacher began to pursue a course which brought him even more disciples than had his former doctrine (discipline). And many of his disciples, like sheep, followed him from the one extreme to the other without missing a bleat or batting an eye.

This teacher became the champion of “unity in diversity,” fellowshipping false religious doctrines and groups, and was always looked upon as a persecuted martyr by his disciples. And those who endeavored to get this malignant cancer out in the open and identify it for what it was were made out to be the bad guys.

As other disciples began to emulate their master, the same scenario/pattern developed time and again. The masters maintained their persecuted, martyr complex, generally were aloof to any “personal attacks” which were beneath their dignity, and let their loyal disciples do their dirty work and parrot their press releases. The disciples said that their mentors were being falsely accused, misunderstood, and even conceded in the face of undeniable evidence that their leaders were at times ambiguous, nebulous, or unwise in some of their proclamation.

I know some of these things to be facts, for I was working with a congregation which supported a preacher which allied himself with another preacher, who was admittedly a disciple of the original master of the “unity in diversity” doctrine. When I wrote to the preacher who was being supported, he refused to answer my questions, but sent an emissary to speak for him. The emissary disciple gave nebulous, ambiguous answers, and even conceded that his mentor was “nebulous” in some of his statements. Yet, the preacher making these hard-to-understand declarations of his positions had a college degree in English and was an assistant professor of English at a prominent university.

There are some things which no man can know. Peter said that there were some of Paul’s writings “which are . . . hard to be understood” (2 Pet. 3:16). It may be harder for some of us to state our positions clearly than it is for others to define their positions. But sometimes a position is hard to understand because the one stating his position is doing his best not to say what his real position is.

Evidence of this last observation is seen in the fact that after a teacher decides the time is ripe to declare his position openly, he has no trouble whatever in stating that position clearly. And his disciples sound like the Lord’s disciples when they said, “Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb” (Jn. 16:29). And lest any-one attempt to divert attention from the real issue, let me plainly declare as a disciple of Christ that I have no complaint whatever with what Christ taught or the way he taught it, and I gladly accept whatever consequences that position may bring.

There is another facet of the disciple/ master principle which we need to consider. Not only do we share in any glory which is attributed to our masters, we must also accept any reproach which is directed toward a master and his disciple. And remember too, that “if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” (Matt. 15:14).

In some social or political philosophies, it may make little or no difference what we believe or why we believe it. Even in religious matters, some things may fall in the realm of personal opinion or conviction, but Romans 14 would have to be as long as the rest of the Bible to admit all positions which supposedly fall into this category.

In matters which are clearly and purely doctrinal, we have two courses open to us as disciples. We can either accept the doctrine/practice, the “master” with whom it originates, and whatever consequences that may bring. Or, we can renounce the doctrine, disassociate ourselves from it and those who propagate it, and accept what-ever consequences that course may bring.

But remember another Bible principle taught by our Master: “No man can serve two masters.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 24, p. 16-17
December 15, 1994

By Ron Halbrook

As the church here at West Columbia continues to grow spiritually and numerically, new challenges and opportunities arise which require good leadership on the part of the elders. As one avenue of communication with the flock, the elders at times send letters to all the members of the church. They recently sent a letter to every member admonishing them to be faithful in attendance, asking for their continued help in developing leadership as we pre-pare to appoint some new deacons, and inviting them to meet with the elders at any time to discuss concerns or problems which they may have.

As a means of reinforcing some of these thoughts, the elders utilized a letter prepared by the eldership of the Williams Chapel Church of Christ in Tennessee dated 27 February 1921. A copy of the letter prepared by the Williams Chapel eldership was published on the front page of the Gospel Advocate on 23 June 1921 (p. 585). A brief editorial note said that the letter had been “used to a fine advantage in creating a better interest” among brethren, and, “Believing that this circular will help other congregations, we pass it on to our readers.” Other congregations today may wish to use this letter as we did, or to revise and adapt it, or perhaps will get ideas from it for writing their own letter to stir up the members. The Williams Chapel letter as it appeared in the Gospel Advocate read as follows.

Stirring Up the Members

Dear Brother or Sister: We find that our church register contains about one hundred and sixty names. Some of these members are meeting regularly and working faith-fully; some are lukewarm, and while they seem to hold on to the profession of faith which they have made, they are not willing to make the effort and sacrifice characteristic of the true children of God; and some have become cold and careless and have ceased to manifest any interest in their own spiritual welfare. Among the latter two classes are some who are living good, moral lives, which is commend-able; but many who make no pretensions of religious profession do that.

Now, dear reader, to which of the three classes mentioned are God’s promises made? To which class do you belong? Are you living as you promised yourself and your God that you would live when you enlisted as a soldier in the army of the Lord? Do you want your name on the church book when you realize that the world looks upon you as a hypocrite? Do you wish to live so that others will lose respect for the cause that you vowed to uphold? What would become of the church if every other member were living as you are living and were giving as you are giving? If you were to die as you are living  and you will die as you live  could you hope to stand with the redeemed in judgment? If so, may not at least all good, moral people hope to be saved?

It is not the purpose of this short circular to teach you your duty  you already know that. It is our purpose to persuade you to do your duty if you are not doing it. If you are doing your duty, you will assist us by trying to save some other soul from destruction.

Perhaps you cannot attend regularly. You can write a letter showing that you are interested. You can send your contributions by mail. You can ask the church to meet with you at your house. If the church were a bank and you had money deposited there, you would manage some way to look after it. The church is your spiritual bank, and Christ is the Cashier. Are you making any deposits? Do you expect your check on eternity to be honored? The faithful ones are praying for you. They are spending their money for you. Will their prayers be unheeded? Will their sacrifices be in vain? We trust not.

Yours for eternity,

The Elders of Williams Chapel

 

As the elders here commented, this letter of long ago “reminds us to make spiritual deposits in the bank of heaven by being faithful to the Lord.”

Churches can remain independent and autonomous while learning from each other and borrowing successful methods from each other. Revelation 2-3 revealed the strengths and the weaknesses of the seven churches to each other, so that they might learn from the experiences of the various congregations, without any violation of independence or autonomy. The example of the church in Thessalonica was an inspiration to brethren far and wide (1 Thess. 1:7-8). The example of the letter by the elders of the Williams Chapel church may help to inspire other churches to stir up the members as it has inspired us here.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 24, p. 12
December 15, 1994