Truth Magazine

By Robert Wayne La Coste

No, I didn’t vote for Bill Clinton, but he is still my President. I will honor his office and will pray for him often. Surely the word of God encourages both (Rom. 13:7; 1 Tim. 2:2). However, though we live in an age and a society that seems to think one’s “rights” include being wrong; such is just not so, including the President.

Jesus reproved earthly rulers when they were wrong. Jesus told Pilate that any power he had as governor was because God gave it to him (John 19:11) and he even called Herod “a fox” (Lk. 13:32). The apostle Paul rebuked governors and kings, told them they were lost and yet did so with respect (Acts 24:25; 26:24-29).

As an evangelist of the gospel of Christ I am charged to “speak and exhort, and rebuke with all authority” (Tit. 3:15). With such divine authority, I took the liberty of sending President Clinton the following letter:

Dear President Clinton,

It is my hope you will reconsider your desire to lift the ban against homosexuals in the military. Such an unnatural sexual lifestyle can only have negative effects against our military and our nation. You are in my prayers daily, Mr. President (1 Tim. 2:2; 1 Pet. 2:17)

A Concerned Christian and Patriot, Robert Wayne LaCoste

The following was sent from the White house the following week:

Dear Robert:

Thank you for sharing your views with me regarding the ban on homosexuals in our Nation’s military.

I believe that people should be judged by their conduct, not by their status, I favor stricter rules of conduct on sexual behavior for all military personnel, along with lifting the ban. Everyone concedes there are and have been homosexuals in the military. Everyone agrees they should be separated from the service for inappropriate conduct. The only question is whether a person can acknowledge being homosexual and stay in the service if he or she has a good record and commits no improper act.

My belief is that we don’t have a person to waste. I respect the wisdom and experience of military leaders, and 1 am working with the joint Chiefs of Staff and the military services, the Congress, and others concerned to design a policy which will ensure equality and fairness, while preserving the unity and preparedness of our military.

 Though we may differ on this issue, I hope that our common concerns for the future of America will unite us. I appreciate your sincerity and candor.

 Sincerely, Bill Clinton

Now, of course, I am not naive to believe that the President himself actually sat down behind his typewriter or computer and personally sent this letter. The signature was no doubt a signature stamp or signed by one of his many secretaries. However, I was appreciative of a response being sent from the White House. Let’s with “all fairness and equity” examine the President’s position.

The President says we should judge people “by their conduct not by their status.” What does he mean by this? If he means we should judge the sexual conduct (lifestyle) of a homosexual, that’s my point exactly. By what standard shall we judge them? How shall we determine if such conduct is good or bad, evil or righteous? There is such a thing as righteous judgment to be sure, but this must be done by the highest standard of moral and spiritual ethics existent and that’s the Word of God! If the President judges such conduct by anything short of this high standard, his judgment will be only superficial and lacking in substance. What do the Scriptures say about homosexuality? Our President was reared a Baptist in Hope, Arkansas. Though we disagree with our Baptist friends on many matters of a doctrinal nature, I believe most of us know how most of them feel about this evil. We should all know what the Scriptures say and be guided by God’s judgment on the matter. God says that such conduct is “wickedness” (Gen. 19:7), “an abomination” (Lev. 18:22), and “vile affections” (Rom. 1:26). God says that “they that commit (conduct) such things are worthy of death” (Rom. 1:32).

The President seems to be implying that there have always been homosexuals in the military. I have discussed this with many World II, Korean and Vietnam veterans. Especially do the World War II vets tell me that homosexuals were never heard of among their ranks. If there were any, they never admitted it, for they knew their fellow soldiers and especially commanders would never have tolerated such. Does anyone have any idea what such men as Dwight Eisenhower, George Patton and Douglas McArthur would have said about such “men”? I believe each reader who has any knowledge of these military leaders knows full well what their feelings would have been about such conduct. Even those men who were in Vietnam, my age group, said that such conduct was intolerable. One special forces sergeant even suggested it would not have surprised him that if there were homosexuals in that war, “friendly fire” no doubt would have weeded them out. That’s sad to contemplate, but men who are fighting for their country are not going to trust such “men” with their lives when the chips are down. They figure any man who is so depraved and so morally degenerate could surely not make judgments that involve life threatening situations.

President Clinton fails to recognize what many do about the homosexual community when he says, “… they should be separated from the service for inappropriate conduct.” Homosexual conduct is such that these people have little control over their unnatural lusts. Their misconduct there-fore could take place most anytime. In the barracks or on the battlefield such conduct could be catastrophic. For just one life to be lost through such misconduct, whether by disease or by being killed by an enemy, is too great a price to pay to say that when it happens they will then be separated. Why not keep them permanently separated by keeping them out of the military altogether and away from situations where morals are so important and team dependency is a must for men to survive?

The President is naive indeed if he thinks such immorally inept people are going to maintain “a good record and commit no improper act.” Some of the homosexuals that were eventually destroyed by God in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19) were blinded by angels who were in fleshly garments visiting Lot’s home. Yet even after being punished by blindness they still wearied themselves to get into the house (v. 11). These people are not capable of maintaining good records and conduct, for their illicit sexual lusts control them at every point. Because of this, the apostle Paul says twice that God “gave up on them” (Rom. 1:24, 26) and thirdly states, “God gave them over to a reprobate mind” (Rom. 1:28). So should our President, until such people repent and turn from such a lifestyle as did some of the Corinthians (1 Cor. 6:9-11). If homosexual men and women repent and turn from such, then and only then should their “record” be judged as good and their acts proper.

Our President doesn’t want to waste anyone, but sexually transmitted diseases are wasting plenty. Why would he want to encourage such opportunity for it to increase? I read just today from the Associated Press that one in every 5 Americans has some kind of sexually transmitted disease! Folks, that’s shocking and it’s only going to get worse until we decide enough is enough.

I’m happy the President is working with all executive and congressional branches on this and especially the military leaders. Our liberal Congress concerns me as always, but I know how General Colin Powell and the Joint Chiefs feel about it. Let us all pray that President Clinton will respect their military experience and wisdom, since he has absolutely no military experience himself. Truly there is no substitute for experience. They are trying to convince him that there will be little unity and therefore much unpreparedness if he, as the Commander-in-Chief, has his way.

Yes, I differ with my President, for reasons I have stated. My concern is for him and this great nation which he now leads. If we have learned anything from the history of the nations of the earth, it is what caused their collapse. From the Babylonian empire to the great Roman and Greek empires, nations collapsed because, as King David of Israel wrote, “there was no fear of God before their eyes” (Psa. 36:1).

Perhaps this truth compelled King David to also write what all our leaders in this country need to reflect on time and again, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord” (Psa. 3:12).

(Editor’s Not e: Although the issue of Gays in the miitary is momentarily resolved, this article is still of interest to our readers.) Gr

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 17, p. 6-7
September 2, 1993

By Ron Halbrook

Bob La Coste was born 29 December 1948 and died 16 August1993 alter a long battle with a lung disease Brother La Coste died at the Methodist Hospital in Houston IX while awaiting a double lung transplant He is survived by his wile Carolyn and by two sans Bill (19 years old on 19 August) and Tim (12) HIs funeral was held on IS August at the Wonsley Drive Church of Christ In Austin, TX. where he has preached for the past ten years Bob was buried In the Memorial Hill Cemetery at Austin

Brother La Coste will be remembered for his faith, cour age, and dedication tothecause ofChrlst. I-fe will be missed in the Northwest where he has been holding gospel meet ings for small and struggling churches since 1976 In a recent report he said With my chronic lung condition its a simple cause of have oxygen tank, will travel but rather than slowing down, lam speeding up! Tim is olthe essence (Preaching Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in the State of Washington,” Guardian of Truth, 3 June 1993, Pp. 336- 38). Bobcarried aportableoxygen tankwith him everywhere he went but continued preaching even when it was neces sary to sit down to preach more recently Never afraid or ashamed to earnestly contend for the faith,” Bob had several debates with denominational people and liberal brethren.

Brother Ken Vaughn and I have just returned from Bobs funeral. On 18 August the Wonsley Drive church building was filled with 300-400 people, including many gospel preachers. Joe Price of Layton, lJtah, who was converted by Bob and Carolyn, preached a lesson emphasizing the hope of the gospel and Harry Osborne of Alvin, TX, who is Carolyns brother, preached from 2 Timothy 4:1-5 on the preachers charge. About six songs were sung by the congregation. Dennis Scroggins, who preaches in Austin, read appropriate passages about the resurrection at the graveside.

Carolyn has exemplified great faith in God in her whole demeanor She was agreat source of strength to Bob as she expressed herlovesang praisesto God! and prayed forhim constantly. Her example i~ an inspiration to all who witnessed it during this trial. She delighted to repeat Bobs assurance, “It is going to get better one way or the other.” One of the last things communicated to Bob was the fact that his son Bill obeyed the gospel; Harry baptIzed him in a hotel swimming pool near the hospital. Bob Indicated that he understood, and smiled in reflection of his joy and thanksgiving. Carolyn is a school teacher and plans to begin almost immediately in teaching during the new term. Though she loved Bob dearly and will miss him greatly, she wants people who know her to see that Christians do not sorrow as others which have no hope.”

Those who wish to express their love and sympathy may contact the La Coste family at 7300 South Ute Trail, Austin, Texas 78729 (phone: 512-250-5374). A memorial fund is being established for the benefit of the family and Dennis ScroggIns is helping with the details at this time.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 17, p. 8
September 2, 1993

By R.J. Stevens

Singing praises to God in worship by God’s people will always be done in this life and in the world to come. Paul exhorted the brethren at Rome, “That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6). He also encouraged the brethren at Corinth to pray and sing with spirit and with understanding (1 Cor. 14:15). The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to command the church at Colosse, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord” (Col. 3:16). Hebrews 2:11-12 says, “For both He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.” Hebrews 13:15 says, “By Him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise continually, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name.”

The above passages emphasize the importance of spiritual singing, especially when the church assembles together. Singing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs is as important in worshipping God as any other act of worship. God knows what is best for his people and he has specifically told us in his word what to sing and the manner in which we are to sing praises to Him. In our assemblies we ask brethren to lead the congregation in prayers. We also ask brethren to lead the congregation in the study of God’s word. Brethren are asked to lead the congregation in praising God in song. It is always best to call on brethren to lead in prayer, to lead in teaching and to lead in singing who have prepared themselves to lead in these areas. Many times brethren are asked to lead who have no desire to lead. Worship is to glorify God and edify brethren. If a person is indifferent about leading in the assembly, he will not glorify God or edify his brethren.

A church should train men and boys to be leaders in our assemblies in a training class. The assembly for worship is not a training class. Churches that have men and boys who are capable song leaders am fortunate. However, there are many churches that don’t have song leaders who can stir the congregation to love and good works (Heb. 10:24). This is not because no one has the ability to lead, but it is usually because no one has applied himself to grow in this ability. Every good song leader was weak when he started. It takes time and effort to grow in our abilities.

I can remember when I was a boy when churches within a radius of fifty miles of home would call my dad to lead singing for their gospel meetings. I have been called on many times to lead singing for churches that have good song leaders in their membership. Many of the preachers in years past who would preach meetings would have a song leader to go with him to direct the singing. These men realized that poor singing can almost kill a meeting. No one objects to having another preacher come to lead the congregation in the study of God’s word. Sometimes the local preacher is a more capable preacher than the one who preaches the meeting. If we can accept having another preacher from another congregation do the preaching in a gospel meeting, we ought to be able to accept having another song leader from another congregation do the song leading for a gospel meeting. If the leaders of a congregation feel that this will make the meeting more effective, no one should object. The ideal arrangement is to have someone in the local congregation who has prepared himself to lead so that the singing will be an asset to the meeting.

Nearly every gospel preacher I have known will say that good congregational singing adds much to the success of a gospel meeting. Good spiritual singing makes a preacher want to preach. I believe that at least twenty minutes ought to be spent in singing praises to God before the sermon. It is also effective when the song leader has planned the song service to have a theme that is related to the preacher’s sermon. Halley’s Bible Handbook gives some of the best observations concerning congregational singing and song leading I have ever read (pp. 740-741). I recommend that all song leaders and those interested in the song service read this material.

“I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being” (Psa. 104:33).

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 16, p. 18
August 19, 1993

By H.E. Phillips

In New Testament days the apostles preached to assemblies of men and women that Christ is Lord, and that his word is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16,17). “Gospel Meetings” refer to assemblies of people who have come together for the purpose of hearing the gospel of Christ preached to them. Philip, one of the seven chosen to minister to the needy widows (Acts 6:3-5), was sent by the Holy Spirit to the city of Samaria where he preached Christ in a gospel meeting. His preaching was very successful in that city in that “both men and women” were baptized, and it produced great joy in that city. Such meetings occurred all through the New Testament where the apostles and inspired men led the way in preaching the gospel of Christ. Where the church existed, such efforts continued down through the ages by those who knew the mission of the church as “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

Churches of Christ have engaged in “meetings” where the gospel was preached on some regular basis from the middle of the last century. The nature, purpose and duration of these meetings have changed over the past one hundred years.

I do not have an abundance of recorded historical information of the early practice of “gospel meetings” among churches of Christ after New Testament times. The nature of this article must depend upon my own experience and the information I have gathered from some gospel preachers of the generation before me. As a young man I spent hours talking to older preachers about their experiences in preaching the gospel. I have especially benefited from talking with such men as Ben F. Taylor, H. Leo Boles, Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Roy E. Cogdill, Charles M. Pullias, C.E.W. Dorris, H.C. Shoulders, N.B. Hardeman, B.C. Goodpasture, and some others. I read history books on the restoration period, and the work of preaching among churches of Christ. For fifty years I read the “new reports” in most of the religious journals among us. That should give a cross section of the general practice of “Gospel Meetings” through the years. From these sources I shall try to construct some historical information regarding gospel meetings. I offer you my understanding of the information gleaned from these sources. You must judge whether this article is of any value to you.

Such meetings as I am discussing were not always known as “Gospel Meetings.” They were referred to as “Protracted Meetings” because they continued over a period of time. They were sometimes designated “Evangelistic Meetings” because the main purpose was to reach denominational people and those who belonged to no church. They were also called “Tent Meetings” in some localities because they were conducted under tents year after year.

After the Civil War and just before World War I, some “Meetings” were arranged by more than one church “cooperating” to provide the place and the preachers for the meeting. Most preachers of that time, including David Lipscomb, E.G. Sewell, and others associated with the Gospel Advocate, opposed this practice.

Occasionally, a debate on doctrinal differences developed from gospel meetings. During the days of J.D. Tant, C.R. Nichol, J. Early Arceneaux, Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Roy E. Cogdill, W. Curtis Porter, and others, many debates with denominational preachers were conducted. Most of these debates developed from gospel meetings in those days. During the I930s and 1940s some churches were established in communities where debates were conducted as the result of “gospel meetings.”

Between World War I and World War II gospel meetings were conducted in school houses, court houses, barns, in brush arbors, tents and occasionally in denominational buildings. The purpose in those meetings was to convince and convert alien sinners to Jesus Christ. Usually large numbers were baptized during the course of each gospel meeting.

My experience in gospel meetings did not begin until near the end of World War II. Reflecting upon the gospel meetings at that time, I believe several factors merged to make them as successful as they were. Some of these factors were: The war turned many to religion to seek God for a solution for their problems that grew out of divided families and the anxieties of war. Opportunities were opened for the gospel in the countries where the military had been during the war. The militant attitude of many churches of Christ during the years immediately following the war made them aggressive in evangelism. Gospel meetings began to increase in number and preachers began to devote their full time to preaching in meetings rather than local work.

During the 1930s and 1940s gospel meetings would often span three Sundays, and sometimes go through the third Wednesday evening. These long meetings resulted from increasing interest as they continued. I remember several meetings in which I preached during the middle ’40s and through the ’50s that would continue a week or more beyond the date advertised to close. The interest continued to mount and both churches and preachers were eager to continue. How could one stop an effort when from one to twelve came to be baptized every night, and several were restored to the Lord each night?

During this period gospel meetings nearly always had day (morning or afternoon) services and evening services every day of the meeting. The preaching was distinctive and forceful. Doctrinal error was exposed and immorality was condemned without apology. Obedience was emphasized in clear language with Bible examples.

During the first half of this country the “pay” for gospel meetings was not what it is today. Often preachers traveled many miles and preached two full weeks or more, and received less than enough to pay for their travel expenses. That happened to me several times during my first twenty years of preaching. I remember talking to brother H.C. Shoulders in my home in 1948 or 1949 about his experiences in gospel meetings. He was in his 80s at the time. He told me that on one occasion he traveled over one hundred miles for a meeting, which lasted two weeks. On the last Sunday the brethren “took up a collection for the preacher” and brother Shoulders said he received $6.29. He put in $2.00 of that amount. He had to travel by train to his next meeting, and borrowed $10.00 from a brother to buy the train ticket. After two weeks in the second meeting, he received $8.50 for his labors. His total income for preaching in two gospel meetings for four weeks was $14.79. I think he said his expenses were about $39.00 for those meetings. That was not an isolated incident! I have preached in a few meetings that cost me up to $50.00 out of pocket to pay my travel expenses above what I received for the meetings. Most every gospel preacher of my generation had this same experience. Later churches began to pay preachers more for assisting them in gospel meetings.

During the 1950s gospel meetings were used by some preachers and churches to promote certain doctrinal issues that later divided churches across the land. The liberal ideas of the social gospel, institutional agencies through which churches should pool their financial resources in evangelism and benevolence, and cooperation of churches through one eldership became the central theme in many gospel meetings across the land. This led to division. During the ’50s and ’60s I had many gospel meetings canceled because of the influence of the promoters of church supported human institutions.

Gospel meetings began to be for shorter periods of time in the 1960s. The six day annual meeting became the pattern. During this period of time many churches re-quested preachers to deal with a specific subject during these six days. Usually that subject concerned the issues of that time.

During the ’70s and ’80s the three day meeting became popular. Some churches decided to have one full week (six days, Sunday through Friday) meeting and a three-day meeting (Friday, Saturday and Sunday) during the year. The three day meeting generally was directed toward some special subjects.

Today serious concern plagues churches in general over the country regarding gospel meetings. It is becoming more difficult to get people to attend a gospel meeting. Forty or fifty years ago the buildings were filled from the first night with denominational people and those who were not members of any religious body. The members were able to bring their neighbors and family members. The members of the church where the meeting was conducted came regularly every day and night to the preaching. They did not depend upon faithful members of neighboring churches of Christ to have a decent audience. Interest increased during the meeting and many were obedient to the gospel. But now it is difficult to get the members of the church having the gospel meeting to attend more than Sunday morning and Wednesday night. We must depend upon other churches of Christ in the area to provide a audience, and that is not as easy as it was a few years ago. There am exceptions, of course

Over the past two decades efforts have been made to stimulate gospel meetings by having a “lectureship” in which two or more gospel preachers preach in three or four services each day on special subjects. These efforts expect to attract the attention of several churches in an area and rely upon their attendance to provide a good audience. The problem is that it does not attract aliens sinners and denominational people. The more mature and faithful Christians enjoy these lessons, but the ones who need them are not there.

Gospel meetings provide a good way to edify a local church and reach some few who come a time or two, but they are not presently reaching the lost people who need the gospel. We must work harder to encourage people to attend meetings where the simple gospel of Christ is preached. We must secure men who will earnestly preach Christ unto the people, and preach “the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 8:12).

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 16, p. 2
August 19, 1993