Truth Magazine

By Connie W. Adams

K Mart, Pornography and Southern Baptists

K Mart, which owns Waldenbooks, is the largest producer of pornography in the country. Efforts have been made, to no avail, to get this retail giant out of the pornography business. The Pension Board of the United Methodist Church a few weeks ago voted to sell all of its stock in K Mart as a protest. Now the Southern Baptist Annuity Board has voted to sell all of their 221,000 shares of K Mart stock for the same reason. Well, shame on K Mart for aiding and abetting the sleaze business. Anything to make a buck! But I am curious as to why the United Methodist Church and the Southern Baptist Church are investors in such a private business enterprise. According to the New Testament, the only authority for gathering funds with which to do the work of the church of the Lord, is by free-will contributions of members made on the first day of the week (2 Cor. 9:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-3). The only scriptural use for these funds is to preach the gospel (Phil. 4:15-16; 2 Cor. 11:8; 1 Tim. 3;15), and to relieve needy saints (1 Tim. 5:16; Acts 4:34-35). Churches which are engaged in business while being sheltered from taxes create unfair competition in the business world. The Southern Baptists are in a battle over biblical inerrant in what they teach about church finances. If so, why did they own 221,200 shares of K Mart?

Allan and Anita Turner To Kenya

Allan and Anita Turner of Louisville, Kentucky, moved to Kenya in east Africa the second week of July. Allan has made two preaching trips there, along with Paul Ayres. The last trip resulted in 45 obeying the gospel. There are now ten congregations meeting in Kenya. Eight of the 45 converted on this last trip were denominational preachers. The Turners plan to live in Nyeri (96 miles north of Nairobi). They will be supported by the Taylorsville Road church in Louisville, though there are some special needs beyond that. We salute them for their work of faith and pray God’s blessings upon them in this worthy effort.

Homosexual Deputy

Adding to the list of homosexuals in the government, HHS Secretary Donna E. Shalala has announced the appointment of news reporter Victor F. Zonana, 39, of New York City, as deputy assistant secretary for public affairs/media for the Department of Health and Human Services. He will be the principle public affairs liaison with the White House Press Office and will work directly with the assistant secretary for public affairs in an agency with 250 programs and the federal government’s largest budget.

Oh yes, he is winner of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation media award, and a co-founder of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (Reported in HHS News, May 13, 1993). Well, I guess this one is definitely out of the closet. Here is another pervert with access to the White House. And we are paying continued on next page his salary! How long will God bless America?

Buddy E. Payne, Jr. to Romania

In September, Buddy and Marilyn Payne and their 13-year-old son, will be going to Bucharest, Romania to spend at least two years in preaching and teaching the gospel. He has preached for the Temple Terrace congregation in Temple Terrace, Florida for several years and has both taught and served as an administrator at Florida College. He currently serves as Dean of the college. It was my pleasure recently to speak in a lecture program with him and also with Jerry Fite, of Pasadena, Texas, at Vivion Road in Kansas City, Missouri. Brother Payne is a very talented man with vast knowledge and the skills to convey it convincingly to an audience. The work in Romania has shown much promise. Brother Payne has done some short-term work there and sees the need for a longer commitment. Our prayers go with him and his family.

Marlboro Man Dead at 51 – Cancer

After smoking a pack and a half a day for 25 years, the handsome cowboy who made commercials for Marlboro cigarettes is dead at 51 of cancer. Late in his life he tried to warn people of the dangers of smoking and even pleaded with the tobacco company to limit its advertising, appearing before stockholders to sound his warnings. One smoker said he had read so much about the dangers of smoking that he had decided to give up reading! How many lives have been cut short from this foul habit! We serve God in our bodies and we ought to take good care of them. Read Romans 6:12-13.

Views of Future Preachers

In the spring of 1992 a survey was taken by Steve Miller, a student at Ohio Valley College. The survey concerned beliefs of Bible majors at that school. Some of the answers were startling to say the least. Question 2 was: Do you believe that a person can become a Christian without becoming a member of the church of Christ? 50% said Yes, 40% said No and 10% said they did not know. Question 3 was: Do you believe that there are Christians scattered among the various denominations? 63% said Yes, 37% said No. Question 7 was: Do you believe that the use of instrumental music in worship is sinful and that one will be lost for using them? 40% said Yes, 40% said No and 20% said they did not know. Question 9 was: Do you believe it is permissible to participate in any kind of joint religious activity with denominations? 53% said Yes, 30% said No and 17% did not know.

Question 11 was: Do you believe a person who has been divorced (but not because of their mate’s fornication) can remain in a second marriage and meet God’s approval? 23% said Yeas and 13% said they did not know. Question 16 was: Do you believe that the New Testament teaches that Christians are to partake of the Lord’s supper every first day of the week and to do otherwise would be sinful? 10% said No and 13% said they did not know. Question 17 was: Do you believe that clapping in worship (with songs or after the sermon) is wrong? 53% said No and 10% said they and not know. Question 18 was: Do you believe that the New Testament alone is sufficient for our authority’? 27% said No and 7% said they did not know.

Folks, the difference between us and some of the institutional churches and preachers becomes more pronounced all the time. In fairness, the same set of questions was put to the students at the Memphis School of Preaching with a much more conservative response. At any rate, you can see what some of these young liberals are going to be preaching (or not preaching).

A Holy Wow

Rubel Shelly, who has become too liberal for some of the institutional folks, has co-authored a book with Randy Harris, described by Shelly as “a bright young theologian at David Lipscomb College.” It is entitled The Second Incarnation, a Theology for the 21st Century Church. It makes about the same appeal as Shelly’s new journal, Wineskins. The purpose of that journal and this new book is to restructure the church in our time. Two quotes will explain what they mean by “the second incarnation.” In the church Christ is “enfleshed again” (55). “He seeks to be incarnate perpetually through the church that dares to wear His name” (240).

One thing which these men think needs drastic change is worship. “Tired forms won’t work with an exuberant message.” With a distinction drawn between gospel and doctrine, Shelly argues that “The old wine is religious legalism and the old wine skins are religious traditions and doctrines” which we “must be willing to scrap to make the message relevant to a new age.” He is ready to fellowship any who holds to “core” beliefs while differing on various doctrinal matters. Where have we heard this before?

He said, “To believe that you hear the Truth, whereas they must change (rest of the religious world – CWA) is an arrogant attitude.” He belittles the idea of using Scripture to prove what you believe. He is down on any idea of a New Testament pattern. He decries “pattern theology” and says “the extreme right (antis) have been more consistent” than the rest of this. “But we regard them as eccentrics,” he said. The restraints of pattern theology are “pointless encumbrances.”

This book is big on spontaneous worship. They decry a “tired, uninspiring event called worship.” This is “boring and irrelevant” (114). They tell us that we must somehow rid ourselves of worship that is “dull and boring to ourselves and unattractive to non-Christians.” Instead we must have a “raucous celebration” with “spontaneity” (139). He says we need “unavoidable worship” with “shouts,” “dances” (119), “jubilation … with applause and cheering” (140), “a narcotic trip into another world” (125) They tell us that worship must “become an encounter experience, that you have had an encounter with God, a holy WOW.”

That is what charismatics have tried to make of worship all along. They have made it into a religious hurray. Emotion becomes everything. This all overlooks one fundamental of acceptable worship. Worship is intended to please God. The only way finite man can know what an infinite God will accept is from his word. He told us what he wants. Granted, he should put our whole hearts into it. Granted we ought not to coldly go through the motions. When we scripturally do that which God authorized in his word, it is anything but dull and boring. Dull and boring to whom? If it is dull and boring to offer up worship which God ordained, then the fault lies with us and not with what we are doing. “Whatever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him” (Col. 3:17). The Father seeks men to worship him “in spirit and in truth” (Jn. 4:24).

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 18, p. 3-5
September 16, 1993

By Jady W. Copeland

There is absolutely no substitute for faithful, uncompromising preaching of the word of God. Paul charged (“to charge earnestly”) Timothy, “Preach the word; Be ready in season, out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned to fables” (2 Tim. 4:2-4). (NKJ)

Within the past sixty or seventy years churches have adopted the practice of “hiring” a “”full-time” preacher to work with the local church. And whether we admit it or not, many are getting dangerously close to the “pastor system” which we so pointedly condemn in denominationalism. If all brethren (the preacher, the elders and other saints) understand the Scriptures, and if they understand their duty to God there is nothing wrong with having a “full-time” preacher in the church. The preacher or the elder is worthy of his hire, if he does his work well (1 Tim. 5:17-18; 1 Cor. 9:6-14). If he is primarily interested in “becoming a preacher” to “have a job” (and I’m afraid this is happening) he becomes a “hireling” and may not put the Lord’s work first in his life and work. Jesus, in speaking of himself as the good shepherd said, “But he who is a hireling and not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming, leaves the sheep, and flees” (John 10-12). I believe this principle is true of the elder or preacher who gets his support from brethren. If the support is a primary consideration he has not the welfare of the flock uppermost in mind. In that case he will “move on” in the interest of his job when things don’t go exactly to suit him. I realize he sometimes gets to the point that he honestly feels he can do nothing for the situation, so there is nothing left but for him to move on.

The Support of Preachers

That churches have the right to support preachers, and that preachers have the scriptural right to accept such support is not questioned. Paul said, “I robbed other churches, taking wages from them to minister to you” (2 Cor. 11:8). Philippi supported Paul (Phil. 4:15-16). This principle is taught in the Old Testament (Deut. 24:15).

When a preacher is supported by churches, is he not still primarily working for the Lord? His work may take him to many places as was the case of Paul, but he is still preaching the gospel to save souls. That is his “business.” Philippi supported Paul while preaching elsewhere. They supported him several times but it seems to me common sense dictates that the church and the preacher have an understanding about such matters when they begin to support him. This prevents problems down the line. If they want him to stay in the community where they live, have that understanding; if he does not like that arrangement he can get support elsewhere. But to say that “he is working for us” seems to put the emphasis in the wrong place. I repeat: his “business” is saving souls for the Lord and we are supporting him while doing so. Read carefully 1 Timothy 4:16.

We have (in our busy society) fallen into the practice of having a “located preacher” and becoming so dependent on him for teaching, that we are, I’m afraid, neglecting our own personal development and study of the Bible. This is a symptom of the “pastor system” that we condemn so definitely in the denominational world. Do we have to have “the located preacher” every Sunday? Is that the only source of information we have? Is this not (unconsciously perhaps) an indication that we are copying the “pastor system” of those around us? It was very refreshing to me several months ago when I visited a congregation who did not have a “regular preacher” and one of the ladies re-marked that “we are doing just fine with the various men taking turns doing the preaching.” With so many men of ability in many congregations now, could it be that if they would prepare well, and apply themselves that they could do the local preaching and have more money to support preachers overseas or other places in this country? Each congregation will have to judge for themselves, but my point is this: “Have we adopted the pastor system without realizing it?” And this is not minimizing the need of good preaching, and the power of the gospel, but we do need to give some thought to where we are drifting. If we think we must be “spoon fed” every Sunday and can’t grow without it, we need to change our thinking. And I repeat: I am not minimizing the power of the gospel, nor the need of gospel preaching; I am simply trying to get us to think about the way we may be drifting.

May I make this suggestion to my fellow preachers  especially you younger men who want to preach or have just begun preaching? Be careful about your demands for money, and be willing to make whatever sacrifice necessary if you really want to preach, and think this is the best way for you to serve God. I fully realize my thinking may be influenced by my own experiences and the time I started preaching (1941) but I believe we can see signs that many think they must have a good salary and be fully supported when they start preaching. If you do not have as your driving desire the salvation of souls, then don’t present yourself to brethren as a preacher desiring support. Think me extreme if you must, but I honestly believe that if you really want to preach, and if you think that is the best way to serve God (if you have the ability), God will provide you a place to preach and support from brethren. But I have often said this (and some may think I am in this category) that there are some who are presenting themselves as preachers who should be serving God in some other capacity. This alone has been the root of many problems.

Young men ask yourselves these questions: “Am I primarily concerned about salary?” “Do I have the attitude of Paul who was willing to work with his hands while preaching without pay?” “Is my driving thought the salvation of souls?” “Is preaching the gospel the most effective way for me to save those souls?” After all, I must not only realize my strengths, but I also must accept my limitations. Please don’t think I am trying to discourage anyone from preaching; it is one of the greatest and most rewarding works on earth. I am only trying to get us to think about the proper use of the Lord’s money as well as encouraging young men to seriously consider how they can best serve the Lord.

Now let us look at the matter of support from the standpoint of the church. Brethren, the preacher is worthy of his hire. Don’t starve him. If he has the proper attitude in wanting to preach, and has the ability, why should he suffer from lack of adequate support? Brethren think about these things when you talk about support: (1) He receives no fringe benefits as do many. Does not the hourly worker receive about’/ of his wages from fringe benefits? (Maybe more) (2) He pays over 15% of his salary in social security. (3) He usually spends more than the average for car expense. I believe car dealers tell me the average mileage put on a car is about 10-15 thousand miles per years. Through the years I have put about 20-25 thousand miles per year on mine, and I don’t drive as much as many preachers. (4) He will do a better job if his wife doesn’t work out of the home. Indeed, brethren, you have a serious responsibility in spending the Lord’s money, and it may be true that some preachers get “more than they are worth” but give some serious thought to the support  he is “worthy of his hire.”

The Support of Elders

While this is less common among us, more and more churches are supporting elders in their work, and it be perfectly scriptural (I Tim. 5:17-18). The above principles need to be kept in mind, but in the case of the elder and the church, the situation is different. The elder must have been a member of the local church for some time in order to be an elder in the first place (note the qualifications that demand this). The church must consider the arrangement and wisdom of such an arrangement. Don’t begin supporting an older man “just so he will have a better retirement.” This is not a good reason to support him. The statement, “The laborer is worthy of his hire” (quoted from Deut. 25:4) is a statement regarding the support of elders, and not preachers, primarily. So he must be “worthy” of hire. We don’t need “hirelings” in the eldership any more than we need “hirelings” as preachers. Another danger in this is that sometimes the other elders look to him to take their work “because he has more time.” While it is true he has more time, it is also true he can’t do their work, any more than the preacher can do another’s work. Both have more than they can do. Also, when an elder is “paid” some may get the idea that he is the “head” or “main” elder. Not so. There is no difference in their work at all; they have equal responsibility.

As we close this series on possessed by our possessions, let us close by saying that in whatever capacity we serve our Master, let us make sure that we are driven by the fact that he is our Master; we are his servant and since material things are only temporary and fleeting, we must not let “things” possess us; let us possess them to his glory and our salvation.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 18, p. 10-11
September 16, 1993

By Bill Crews

“To steal or purloin and pass off as one’s own (the ideas, words, writings, etc. of another).” Thus does a dictionary define the word “plagiarism,” and the practice is alive and well among men. It is a form of both theft and lying, and it is found among authors and writers, students and teachers, reporters and editors, politicians and preachers. It is not practiced to a large extent, and it is nearly always found out. When it is deliberate, it is reprehensible and inexcusable.

Many of the things that every individual has learned have come from others in the form of spoken words heard or written words read. Our mind are thus influenced and molded, and they retain those things that we believe to be true and accept as good and worthwhile. These, in turn, find expression in our own words, both spoken and writ-ten. Very little of what anyone writes is completely original in the truest sense of that word (cf. Eccl. 1:9; 2:12; 3:15; 6:10).

Hardly anyone who writes anything is going to do so without using some of the words and phrases, ideas and themes, points and conclusions of others. But this is a far cry from copying the material of others and giving our-selves credit for it by affixing our own names to it. Sometimes material is copied, and the name of the author inadvertently left off. Sometimes such “anonymous” material is used, and a name mistakenly affixed to it as the author. Sometimes initials at the end of an article are misconstrued (some writers have the same initials). I have seen articles written by attributed to others  knowing how such things can happen and considering it an honest mistake (and flattered that anyone would think my material worth repeating), I usually do nothing about it. But when I see somebody else’s material attributed to me, I always want to write and correct it. But, again, all of this is a far cry from deliberate plagiarism.

This article is simply an appeal to every one who writes, prints, and circulates articles to be more careful and more conscientious. Put your name on initials at either the beginning or the end of your articlesor otherwise identify yourself as the author (“all articles written by the editor unless otherwise specified”). When using material that you do not write, identify the author; if unknown, say so. But please resist the temptation to claim credit for words written by someone else. If you have ever knowingly and deliberately done so in the past, repent of it and resolve never to repeat it.

When I was a student in college, I lost respect for one of my teachers when I learned that many statements in his own textbook were taken directly from other authors (whose books were in the school library) without putting them in quotation marks and with no credit given to those authors in any fashion. I have a Bible handbook supposedly written by a brother in the Lord (who has published several books), but much of it is taken directly, word for word, from an older and larger Bible handbook, without any credit given to the original author. An outlined article by Frank L. Cox was used by a brother in his local church bulletin, copied word for word, with his own name affixed at the end. Recently I received a bulletin with an old Erma Bombeck article (one of her few very serious ones, written more than ten years ago) in it. Credited as the author was a preacher who obviously didn’t write it.

Honest mistakes we all understand, but deliberate plagiarism is inexcusable. Anyone who resorts to it knows exactly what he is doing, and “my brethren, these things ought not so to be” (Jas. 4:10).

(Editor’s Note: Some churches are guilty of unlawfully using another’s work when they buy one copy of a workbook and photocopy the lessons from it to pass them out to the class. Besides being illegal, it is also not cost effective. A 70-page book at 5-10 cents a page costs more when photo-copied then when purchased.)

“Honest mistakes we all understand, but deliberate plagiarism is inexcusable. Anyone who resorts to it knows exactly what he is doing, and `my brethren, these things ought not so to be.’ “

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 18, p. 9
September 16, 1993

By Ruben Amador and Warren E. Berkley

Preaching in the Cayman Islands in the Caribbean in the middle of July doesn’t sound like bad work, if you can get it. But Ruben Amador and Warren Berkley took the assignment, and didn’t get a tan, party on a yacht, or rent scuba equipment. We certainly admired the beauty of the island, but our main task was to preach and teach.

The churches at West Bay and Georgetown are under the influence of institutional, sponsoring churches, but the local brethren invited us to visit and speak. In a week-end meeting, a series was presented under the theme Fellow-ship with God: Where to Start. The primary point of the sermons was, whatever we undertake (as individuals or local churches) we must always begin with what the Word of God says and resolve to stay within the boundaries of divine instruction. This was presented at both West Bay and Georgetown the week-end of July 12 & 13.

The members of the church, for the most part, had no strenuous objection to the teaching, and even when applications were made to the work of the local church, there was agreement. Some were indifferent to our efforts, others acknowledged that we aroused their interests, and some of the brethren in the church were especially interested. On Monday night we studied privately with the local preacher, and when he brought up some of the typical objections to our use of Philippians 4:15, we answered by emphasizing that only one church “shared” with Paul “concerning giving and receiving,” thus ruling out the Philippian church as a sponsoring church. As the discussion continued, the brother brought up numerous questions and we concluded there is a genuine desire on his part to study further. Correspondence will be initiated with this man, and future trips may occur to stay in touch with those who want to study further.

Those who may be contemplating work in the Caribbean might be interested in some of the observations we made in our trip. While some of these points may only apply to the Caymans, it is likely some of these things will apply in other parts of the Caribbean too.

1. There is a slow-paced, “laid back” lifestyle there. Many of the natives seem to have the “don’t worry, be happy” approach to life. While we do not encourage worry, there are some things people need to be urgent and serious about, especially as concerns God and eternity. When you preach in the Caribbean, you may encounter an attitude that seems to be irritated with your urgency and fervor. In the British West Indies (Cayman Islands), we found some Christians so relaxed they were indifferent about our insistent appeals to make all things according to the pattern.

2. If you have opportunities in churches under institutional control, be prepared to find a very dependent congregation. The sponsoring church arrangement is not only an unscriptural human innovation, it is a system encumbered with all sorts of other negatives. Churches in the States may send young people to these resort places to conduct campaigns and camps (and swim, play soccer, scuba dive, etc.). After years of accepting this, the native members soon expect it, depend upon it and refrain from any personal evangelism themselves. You may also find congregations in the Caribbean unable to breathe, being under the tight thumb of their sponsoring church. (We know of a case where the sponsoring church in America holds the title papers for a church building!) Consequently, there is little appreciation of autonomy. All the information we have is, this is the rule and not the exception.

3. On Grand Cayman (and this may not apply on other islands), congregations are multi-racial. In the churches we visited, for example, there were native Caymanians, British, Jamaicans, Americans and Hispanics. In some cases there are tensions and symptoms of prejudice you may observe. This is one of those cases where the tensions and problems in society have impact in churches.

4. When dealing with opportunities within institutional controlled churches, some of your best work may occur with individual private conversations and Bible studies. We preached the truth publicly as clearly as we could, and made some very plain statements about following New Testament instruction. But we are persuaded the most good we did was in private conversations and studies. We would suggest, if you have these kind of opportunities  start with the local preacher. Then, invite him to go with you into homes when you have a family with interest in further study.

There may be some real opportunities in instititutional churches in foreign fields. We cannot, of course, generalize from this trip to Grand Cayman. But it is likely that what we found in Cayman is typical of other Caribbean congregations, and maybe in other places too. If you know a member of one of these churches, and they can get a invitation for you to speak, or some capable preacher you know, follow through and work that opportunity fully.

(For further information about our trip to Grand Cayman, call Ruben Amador, 713/956-0879 or Warren Berkley, 210/687-6176. A good man located in the Caribbean is Tol Burke, 809/773-7163.)

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 18, p. 12
September 16, 1993