Truth Magazine

By Wayne Goforth

Recently, Southern Christian University (new name for Alabama Christian School of Religion) sent their paper to churches across the country to inform everyone of their name change. In News and Notes (volume 1, number 2) Rex Turner, Sr., co-founder of the school, had some articles at-tempting to justify the school as an adjunct of the church and the schools involvement in missions.

On page 21 there were charts on mission work showing the various “methods” he believes the Bible allows in organizing such. The typical sponsoring church arrangement was presented, using the cooperation of churches in the area of benevolence as his proof. “The argument is that if the sponsoring church concept can be Script rally verified in the benevolence work of the church, then the concept could be employed in supporting missionaries or preachers,” said Doctor Turner. Not only is that a gross assumption on his part, but also he does not then prove a sponsoring church in the area of benevolence. He cites Acts 11:29-30 and 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 as his examples of such. But, where is the sponsor in these passages? Where is a church taking on a project knowing it is bigger than it can support? Where is the middle man church collecting and overseeing the use of said funds as it is distributed then to other churches? In-stead, these funds were simply sent directly to the destitute church giving us authority for concurrent cooperation, not joint. Though this is standard operating procedure for the institutional mindset, he then took a sharp twist from such in the next part. He raised the question, “Is the sponsoring church concept the only authorized method for sending out missionaries? No.” The article then answered, “. . . (Phil. 4:15) The church sent directly to Paul. To say that one must have a sponsoring church is to make a law where God has not made one.” (Liberals define “Anti” as one who “makes a law where God has not.” Does this mean that those who argue that the sponsoring church is the only correct method are “Anti”? By this, Guy N. Woods, Roy Deaver, Ben Vick, et al, are “Anti,” awg).

Brother Turner even went as far as to admit that churches lose their autonomy under the sponsoring church by saying, “The autonomy of a church is maintained when it sends its support to an individual to do mission work… . There are many churches and individuals who do not want to go through a sponsoring church but would rather have direct contact and reports from the one they are supporting.” I could not have said it better! Thank you, Rex

Turner. One does wonder how he could have begun the article by saying the sponsoring church is scriptural if he admits that autonomy is lost under such a practice?

What makes his appeal to Philippians 4:15-16 so unusual is that this passage has been consistently used in debates by these brethren as a proof text for the sponsoring church. He will no doubt have some backlash from his own brethren in this. The argument generally runs as follows: Philippians 4:15 tells us that only Philippi sent to Pauls needs, while 2 Corinthians 11:8-9 states that many churches came to Pauls assistance. Therefore, it is argued, many churches sent their support through the Philippian church. They have argued that the expression “giving and receiving” of Philippians 4:15 is a banking term indicating that Philippi simply kept the books of all the donations and funneled them on to Paul, diagrammed thusly:

Guy N. Woods, like Rex Turner now, taught the truth on this passage at one time. In his Annual Lesson Commentary of 1946, brother Woods stated “The brethren simply raised money and sent it directly to Paul. This is the way it should be done today” (Via Cogdill-Woods Debate, p. 291). But, in the debate with brother Cogdill, he then denied that Philippians 4:15 is an example of direct support. Brother W.W. Otey taught the truth on this verse in his debate with J.B. Briney in 1908. Brother Otey stated,

Now who sent it? Was it some great missionary society or organization? Oh, no, but the church at Philippi, sent directly to Paul, the man in the field. . . . The largest single working organization in the world for more than 100 years after Christ, was a local congregation” (Otey-Briney Debate, pp. 280-281).

Ben Vick, liberal preacher for the Shelbyville Road church in Indianapolis, Indiana says however,

You cannot prove if your life depended upon it (and your soul may) that Philippi sent directly to Paul. However it is my contention that Philippians 4:15 and 2 Corinthians 11:8 refer to the same thing and that Philippi set up an account to receive monies from churches and then, in turn, sent to Paul. Otherwise, how could Paul have robbed other churches when he says only Philippi sent?

(Personal letter dated 5-19-86 after my coming out of liberalism. The content of his letter is well known, for he has written and debated publicly the same on numerous occasions.) Perhaps we shall soon see a Turner-Vick debate since Vick denied in his 1984 debate with L.A. Stauffer that there is any New Testament example of direct support! Let me know and I shall be most happy to moderate for you, brother Turner!

When properly examined, the incidents of Philippians 4 and of 2 Corinthians 11 actually have more differences than they do similarities:

Philippians 4:15 2 Corinthians 11:8

At the time Paul left 1. At the time Paul was at

Macedonia. Corinth.

Philippi only church 2. Many churches gave

who gave to Paul. to Paul.

Philippi only church 3. Many churches had

who had fellowship fellowship with Paul. with Paul.

 

Can two examples so different be the same case?

Much time and many incidents separate Philippians 4:15 from the occasion of 2 Corinthians 11:8, so that there is not even a chronological connection between the two. In Acts 16 we find Paul along with Luke, Timothy, and Silas at Philippi. Luke remained at Philippi (Acts 16:40) while Paul and the rest went on to Thessalonica (Acts 17:2). Paul and Silas next traveled to Berea (Acts 17:10). Paul then moved on to Athens (Acts 17:16), thus leaving the region of

Macedonia and going to the region of Achaia. Silas and Timothy remained in Berea (Acts 17:14). Paul preached in Achaia waiting for Silas and Timothy to come (Acts 17:15). Paul went to Corinth and made tents (Acts 18:1-3) while he waited for Silas and Timothy to come bringing the sup-port from Macedonia (Acts 18:5; 2 Cor. 11:8-9). From Philippians 4:15 we know that Paul received their support as he was leaving Macedonia (his last stop being Berea). Adam Clark estimates there may have been up to a year between leaving Macedonia and the arrival of Silas and Timothy to Corinth, as mentioned in 2 Corinthians 11:8-9.

What then is the meaning of the expression “giving and receiving” in Philippians 4:15? Thayer states, “A giving .. . an account of giving and receiving . . . Phil. 4:15; Here Paul, by a pleasant euphemism, refers to the pecuniary gifts, which the church bestowing them enters in the account of expenses, but he himself in the account of receipts . . . of money given and received.” Thus, Paul is in no wise saying that Philippi kept the books on all transactions of monies which other churches sent to an account at Philippi, and then of transfers and bookkeeping of monies sent from the account at Philip-pi to Paul.

Thank you, brother Turner, for clarifying this passage for your institutional brethren. It is my prayer that you and others will accept this as the pattern and drop the sponsoring church machinery. By your own admission, it is destructive to local church autonomy.

When conservative brethren speak of direct support as op-posed to the sponsoring church, we are labeled as “Anti cooperation” and “Anti evangelism.” Is brother Turner now “Anti Cooperation” and “Anti evangelism” for suggesting concurrent cooperation of churches? If not, will his brethren cease to refer to us in such language? Alas, the “legs of the lame are not equal.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 2, p. 6
January 21, 1993

By Kathleen M. Berendt

Why is it so, that when you hear the young people of the church tell you what they want to do with their lives, one seldom hears, “I want to be a preacher,” or “I’d like to be a preacher’s wife”? As I’ve asked repeatedly, the usual answer, heard time and time again, is, “But a preacher’s life is so poor; so hard; it’s just. . .”

Could it be that our children have received such “negative press” from us as parents, that this “career choice” is simply out of the question? Or could it be, that what they see brethren put the preacher and his family through just isn’t for them. Could we not make the life of a preacher and his family more appetizing or appealing? For that matter, maybe preachers and their families need to examine how they’re coming across to the young people.

It sounds to me, like I’m living “the impossible lifestyle,” yet I live it each day. These are things I have heard brethren comment on — could this be you? “It takes a certain kind of woman to be a preacher’s wife.” When asked, “What kind?” the answer comes back, “One who can live in a fishbowl. . . Have no private lifestyle. . . Raises perfect children. . . Always studies the Bible. . . Caring for the needs of everybody in the church. . . Never having a perm-anent dwelling place, or owning their own home. . . Never going on ‘big’ vacations. . . You’re never to have anything of ‘real’ material value. . . Can’t drive a nice, new, expensive (red) car. . . Entertains constantly, always ‘at the drop of a hat’. . . hardly can afford to get sick. . . The list goes ‘on and on.”‘ But the very top of “the list” is always the same one, “Preachers don’t make good money; they have to live such a rough life.”

Why is this? I’ve actually heard some brethren say to preachers, “You’ve given up all the fine things that life has to offer, when you ‘went into’ preaching.” Being raised in the Catholic Church, I realize that nuns and priests have to take a “vow of poverty,” but so far, I haven’t come across this stipulation in the word of the Lord, nor the “job description” of a gospel preacher. Some make the life of a preacher look so hard and horrible, no one would dare volunteer to such an undertaking. Even preacher’s children are heard to remark, “I sure don’t want to be a preacher (like my daddy); it’s too hard.”

Putting the Lord “number one” in our lives, is to be the task of all his children (Matt. 6:33; 1 Cor. 15:58). Attending all the worship services is mandatory for all who truly love him (Heb. 10:22-25; Jas. 4:17; Psa. 110:3), as well as being prepared and ready for Bible classes, and studying the word of God (Acts 17:11; Jn. 5:38-40). Being kind, caring, and considerate to all others (the sick, elderly, downtrodden, weak and otherwise needy) is enjoined upon all disciples of the Christ (Rom. 12:9-16; Matt. 25:31-46; Jas. 1:21-27). Also, being hospitable to one another, is a widespread requirement (Heb. 13:1-2; 1 Pet. 4:8-9). The pursuit of worldly gain and wisdom is forbidden (Rom. 12:1-2; Col. 3:1-15). And finally, living a life without sufficient income is also for all of us. . . Oops — there’s the stopper! It really isn’t for all of us after all, or is it? Is this the ultimate hardship?

God has promised to care for all of our needs, provided we trust in him (Matt. 10:28-33, 6:19-34; Phil. 4:4-9; 1 Pet. 5:5-7). With that thought, I’ll say this: A preacher’s salary is “ordained” by the Lord, but decided upon, by the brethren (1 Cor. 9:3-14). If a preacher’s lifestyle is so hard, it probably is because the brethren believe it must be so, not our Lord (Gal. 6:6-7; 1 Tim. 5:18). The Lord especially wants the hardest of his workers to be cared for. If preachers and their families can’t be provided for, the way the rest of God’s children would like to be, something is seriously wrong. All of the brethren have their needs, but it never ceases to amaze me, how the preacher’s needs are measured by a “different” standard. Some preachers don’t even have insurance, or if they do, it’s such poor quality, that his family waits until they’re practically on their death bed before they see a doctor! An eye doctor, dentist, or orthodontist is a luxury which many preachers’ dependents rarely see. When vacation time comes around, too often the difference in the brethren and the preacher’s income is seen. As the family struggles to make their month-to-month “regular” bills, often getting a bit behind on their budget, that finding sufficient cash even for gas money is a difficult task. Grandma and grandpa seem so very far away at such times. A “worn out” preacher is seen, along with his tired family, who are barely able to get away, to visit their relatives. Of course, this type of visit is wonderful, but not always very restful, especially when you travel through the night, with the family sleeping in the car, for lack of funds for a motel.

If brethren are “early risers,” they expect their preacher and his family to rise early even though his work may have caused them to stay up late. What is often found, is that usually a preacher and family are both early risers and late nighters.

If the preacher decides to take one day off, out of a seven day work load (as did his Lord) and he doesn’t get away from home, his “day off” can easily become a full day’s work, including late night hours. It only takes a few calls from brethren to fill a “lazy” preacher’s daily schedule.

A church with any amount of members, considering all the different needs of each person with all the preacher and his family must do to please each of them, could leave a preacher and his family in an endless battle of no private lifestyle. “No rest for the weary!” A preacher has to protect his family and himself, making choices as to what they will and will not do, to make sure they have a good family lifestyle. This includes spirituality, eating, work, fun, and resting; preferably done together (as in — “a family unit”). Too often they find time for only one.

If it sounds like a “hard life” — it is, or at least it can be at times. These hardships, of course, are not limited to preachers and their families, as everyone who is diligent and active, doing the Lord’s work will find themselves with plenty to do at all times. But you simply live it each day — and pray to the Lord, turning to him for the strength and energy to make it each day (Phil. 4:13). For he is the pillar of all families who diligently serve him daily, the world over.

But my main concern is this — I am rather young myself, and already I ask this question (usually of myself, and my God), “Who is going to take my husband’s and my place, in the service of the Lord, when we are gone off this earth?”

“Who will live this hard life?”

Let us pray together, brethren, on these matters. I believe it is a great concern of the Lord and should be to his children as well. I thank the Lord each day for providing me with the strength to serve him. That such a worm as I can be enabled to do his work on earth, but through “the foolishness of preaching,” he chose to get his word out. We all need to live “the hard life” — for him. To quote a wise man, I love dearly, “His people may (at times) not seem to be worth it — but our Holy Father always is!” And that is why we live the hard life!

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 2, p. 8
January 21, 1993

By Johnie Edwards

A cigarette commercial sells its tobacco on the theme, “You Have Come a long way baby.” It might be more rightly said, “We have got a long way to go.” Let’s take a look at some areas in which we have a long way to go:

 

In Our Attitude Toward Sin

Most people have white-washed sin to the degree that few know what sin really is and what it will do. Sin is still sin and does what it has always done. Sin separates us from God. Isaiah said, “But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear” (Isa. 59:2). This passage says that sin:

1. Separates us from God. God cannot stand sin and he will not allow us to be near him as long as we sin.

2. Causes God to hide his face from such. Peter said, “For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers; but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil” (1 Pet. 3:12).

3. God will not listen when we pray. Try as hard as you may, if you are not willing to quit your sinning, God will not hear when you pray.

All forms of sin are tolerated in a lot of churches of Christ and no one says a thing about it. A lot of churches are so worldly that you can hardly tell the difference between them and the world! The wages of sin are the same as they have always been. “For the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23).

In the Upbringing of Our Children

“The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame” (Prov. 29:15). Many of our children are being left to themselves to do as they please when they get ready. The rod and reproof have been left off and wisdom goes lacking! Most parents are too busy and thus spend so little time with their children, they do not know what they need in regards to discipline.

A lot of parents are more interested in things than in their own children. Parents are commanded to “train up a child in the way he should go” (Prov. 22:6). Fathers are instructed, “And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). The wise man said, “Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him” (Prov. 22:15). As parents, we just need to apply the rod in the proper places. We cannot wait until the child is half-grown to begin this correction, but it must start at a very early age.

Too many parents give their children too many things. Young people these days grow up with everything they want and have nothing to look forward to in later years. With the free sex life most young people are encouraged to live, I don’t even see why they bother with the “honey-moon” when they get married! We have a long way to go in teaching our children.

Most of our schools are filled with drugs, alcohol, guns and sex with hardly any discipline. There was a time when a child got a whipping at home if he got one at school. To-day, if a child gets a whipping at school, the child and his father go to the school and whip the teacher! We have got a long way to go in regards to discipline!

With Regards to Respect for Authority

So few have so little respect for authority that you might think there is no authority anymore! A lot of people have no respect for themselves, anybody, or anything. Kids talk back to their parents. Those in places of authority are not respected or feared, not even God! Young people are commanded to “honor thy father and mother” (Eph. 6:2). It must be realized that Christ has “all authority in heaven and in earth” (Mt. 28:18). A lot of churches of Christ have a long way to go to get back to respecting what Christ has to say. He is “the head of the body, the church” (Eph. 1:22-23). The church must come a long way back, in some places, and realize that “the church is subject unto Christ” (Eph. 5:24).

When more than 4000 churches send funds to a sponsoring church to try to evangelize the whole world, as with the One Nation Under God project, we have got a long way to go! We have to go back to the example of the church at Philippi as they “sent once and again unto my necessity” (Phil. 4:16). Paul said, as he preached the gospel in Thessalonica. They sent directly to the preacher in the field of work and not through a sponsoring church with elders who were not satisfied to just “tend the flock of God among them” (1 Pet. 5:2). We have come a long way from this old pattern of evangelism.

There is a great demand for all of us to “fear God” (Eccl. 12:13; Acts 10:34-35). As was said in Jeremiah’s day, it can be said today in a lot of places, “my fear is not in thee, saith the Lord God of hosts” (Jer. 2:19).

In Being Faithful

I am not convinced that many really know what faithfulness is all about. John’s statement about being faithful is a summary of all the child of God is taught to do. “Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life” (Rev. 2:10). Paul told the Corinthians, “Morever it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful” (1 Cor. 4:2). We have got a long way to go in being faithful. These early Christians were being threatened with death itself and in the face of being burned at the stake, they were encouraged to just hold out and be faithful, even to the giving of your own life.

A lot of church members think they are faithful when they attend on Sunday morning, eat the Lord’s Supper, give a few dollars and live as they please during the week! Being a Christian and going to heaven is a daily affair. We are taught to be “steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord” (1 Cor. 15:58). And, until we do this, we have got a long way to go!

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 1, p. 18
January 7, 1993

By Kenneth D. Sits

It appears the debate about abortion in America is over. Recently, America spoke in the national election and various state elections to continue the practice of abortion. Abortion may be defined as: the wanton destruction and elimination of: (1) viable tissue mass or (2) a baby in the womb of a: (1) woman or (2) mother. Regardless of what people may say, abortion is the wanton destruction and elimination of a baby in the womb of a mother. Since 1973, America has witnessed the killing of 1.5 million babies a year within the wombs of their mothers. That calculates to 30 million babies by the end of this year which is approximately 1/10 of our current population in the United States. The trumpet sound of the “modern person” now boldly and assertively blows that this practice of pre-meditated murder and slaughter is what we want in our society. For them, it is a great day of victory for the “rights” of women across the land.

Many groups proudly display their legislative victory as a woman’s “right” to choose. I can remember reading about a woman’s “right” to choose in the Bible. The very first woman had a “right” to choose in Genesis chapter 3. It was there that Eve recalls God’s command for her not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. However, Satan told her that she had a “right” to that tree. Satan said in Genesis 3:4, “You shall not surely die. For God knows in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” There is no doubt, Eve had a choice. It was up to her. Would she obey her Creator, or eat the fruit she truly wanted to eat? She exercised her “right” to choose and disobeyed God by eating the forbidden fruit. The story in Genesis goes on to tell us that the results of Eve’s choice brought heartache, pain and suffering. She had a “right” to choose, but it surely wasn’t the right choice.

Our country has made it legal for women, without regard to the father, to slaughter a child in her womb. It is her choice to exercise legally, but it isn’t a choice without consequences. Consider some of the consequences of this “right” to choose to have an abortion.

The same God who created and punished Eve has spoken to people concerning his hatred of the shedding of innocent blood (Prov. 6:17). Man would like to tell you that this “tissue mass” is not a human being, but God, in the Bible, completely contradicts this idea. In Ecclesiastes 11:5 the wise preacher says, “As you do not know what is the way of the wind, or how the bones grow in the womb of her who is with child.” God calls the fetal mass within a woman’s womb a child. In Luke 1:44, the Scriptures tells us that “the babe (brephos) leaped in the womb for joy.” Clearly God has taught us that a babe becomes a babe at its creation which can only be fertilization. Isaiah said this in Isaiah 49:1, “The Lord has called me from the womb; from the matrix of my mother he has made mention of my name.” God called Jeremiah in a similar fashion in Jeremiah 1:5, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; and I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” When a woman exercises her legal right to “choose” to abort her “viable tissue mass,” she is actually choosing to murder a child in her womb!

We are beginning to be exposed to a great deal of data from emotionally shattered women who exercised their “right” to choose. There are many, many women who have come out of the closet confessing various kinds of emotional distress a past abortion has done to their lives. Some women have committed suicide. Some will never be able to forgive themselves. Some have divorced their mates and left their other children. On the positive side, some have turned into the most ardent campaigners and champions of the “pro-life” movement. Why do women continue to have these types of reactions if they were just removing an inconvenient, unwanted growth? They knew conscientiously, and later knew biblically, that they destroyed a life which God created. They were beginning to feel the impact of Eve’s con-sequences for their “right” to choose.

What is the bottom line to the modern holocaust of abortion? It is the ancient battle of Satan verses God. It’s the battle of big money verses God’s righteousness. It’s the battle of self-seeking verses sacrifice. It’s the battle of good verses evil. It’s the battle of our personal choices verses what God wants me to do. Sadly, it appears that truth and righteousness are losing.

One must have his head buried in the sand not to notice that the sin of abortion is destroying the moral fabric of our society. Abortion’s overt wickedness is affecting the minds of our next generation by encouraging them to pro-mote self-seeking and self-proclaimed “rights” the constitution and God never extended to Americans. Abortion is even affecting those who would call themselves Christians. There are several denominations who have officially taken pro-abortion stands such as the: Episcopal, United Methodist, United Presbyterian, Disciples of Christ and United Churches of Christ. Today, there are members of the blood bought body of Christ, the church of Christ, who are “closet believers” in a woman’s “right” to an abortion. There are disciples of Christ among us who have had no conscientious problem in voting and electing people who have advocated a pro-abortion stance in our last election! Consider what God said in Romans 1:32, “Who knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.” Brethren, we need to repent and pray God if we have knowingly supported one who publicly advocates a pro-abortion stance! Where is our love for the truth of God gospel?

Since God is the Creator of life, he is the only one who has the right to destroy life. God has decreed to extend this authority to the government to bear his sword on the evil doer (Rom. 13). This godly principle known as “capital punishment” continues to be fought against by the same people who demand their “right” to bear the sword on the innocent babe in the womb. God will not be long in his punishment. In Revelation 21:7-8 God has said, “He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be my son. But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake of fire which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” Abortion often results from sexual immorality and tries to cover up lies, idolatry (covetousness), cowardly action and other abominations. The act of abortion is one of the ultimate acts of unbelief. How can Christians be even remotely connected or endorsing such a heinous action?

Brethren, we must be prepared. The time seems to be drawing near that our cries to end abortion in America will no longer be an acceptable protest against this abomination. In the future, we may all be challenged to state our views and we may have to publicly suffer for speaking the truth of God’s word on this subject. Are you prepared to stand up as a soldier of the cross and accept persecution for the truth? Abortion is a sin against God and humanity. No amount of legislation can change the truth of God or make a wrong a “right.” Choose to accept God and our forefathers’ plea for “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 2, p. 3
January 21, 1993