Truth Magazine

By Lewis Willis

While out-of-town in a gospel meeting, I was given a copy of the newspaper supplement, USA Weekend (April 13-15, 1990). The lead article was entitled “McChurch,” and it centered on activities in what is being called the many “mega-churches” located throughout the country. The primary focus was on the Willow Creek Community Church in South Barington, Illinois, and its preacher, Bill Hybels. In giving his explanation for their rapid growth, Hybels said the key is “Marketing. Ask consumers what they want, then let them (as they say at Burger King) have it their way.” The author of the article, Cindy LaFavre Yorks, put this sub-heading on her article, “To attract churchgoers today, you’ve got to please the consumer. That means high-tech entertainment. Day care. Self-help groups. No pleas for money. No Bible thumping. Happy customers from California to Maryland are eating up ‘fast-food religion’ this Easter.”

In the so-called “worship” of these mega-churches, the idea is not to bore the worshiper. Thus, they use drama, humor and pop music -no “archaic hymns.” The “pitch” goes from “home-baked pies to high-tech telemarketing to day care.” Where is the Bible in this pitch?

I guess there are times when I am not “up-to-speed” about what is going on around me. However, I am still reluctant to think of people who assemble for worship of God as “customers.” I certainly have no intention of buying into the idea that you should produce a worship that “lets them have it their way.” Personally, I happen to like the idea of home-baked pies. I just can’t find any authority for getting pies into the worship of the church. If you are playing to “customers,” I guess it really does not make any difference what you are doing which is really the essence of this matter.

It seems that people have confused the object of their worship. It appears rather obvious that they are not worshiping the same object I am trying to worship. I have had this “archaic” notion that we were supposed to be worshiping God. They apparently have the notion that we are worshiping the “customers.” At least, they are careful to give the “customers” whatever they want and they seem to pay no attention at all to giving God what he wants. And, this is the fatal flaw in this ungodly approach to church development.

I had this subject on my mind before I received the article I am referring to. I had received an invitation to a wedding at a big liberal Church of Christ in Columbus, Ohio. When I got to the building I found a so-called Church of Christ trying to play to its customers. It was evident just by looking at the building. There was a new auditorium complex to the left, with the old auditorium on the right. Pulling into the parking lot, one was greeted with instruction on the front door of the old auditorium, “Exit Only.” When I got inside I found out why. The auditorium was now the new “fellowship hall.” The former foyer was now a storage area for the pots and pans essential to the “fellowship” of that church. I can remember a time, when these eating houses were being introduced, that great care was taken to explain that the portable partitions in the classrooms only made congregational dinners “possible.” No longer do these apostates even bother to shield what they are doing. The old auditorium I was in formerly had the permanent classroom partitions removed so that they could seat more people for their dinners. The old pulpit was an excellent place for the gift table of the couple being married. The bridal cake was a beautiful thing to behold, sitting in what was an old classroom. But there was one big problem – they had no place to get water for the 100 cup coffee pot, except in the restrooms of the new building. I’m surprised that someone has not suggested that they pipe water from the old baptistry for the congregational coffee pot. I tell you, folks, it isn’t easy turning a place of worship into a playhouse. But, longing for a mega-church status, and being willing to give the “customers” whatever they want, our departed brethren are trying with all their might!

I sat there in the new auditorium for the wedding, then I went into the “fellowship hall,” all the while wondering if I should even be there. I felt certain that it would require armed force to get into that beautiful new pulpit and preach, “What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. . . And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come” (1 Cor. 11:22,34). 1 know that kind of preaching would be unwelcome there.

I was just thinkin ” then and now, that it was like being in a denominational building. I now realize that I was in the building of a denomination! The Church of Christ would never do such a thing as those people obviously do all the time. It would be a shame if it did. Let the denominations build their “McChurches” let the Lord’s Church continue to struggle along, doing the will of the Lord.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 14, p. 428
July 19, 1990

By P.J. Casebolt

The use of parables (setting one thing beside another) is an accepted and effective method of teaching (Matt. 13:1013).

When we are blind to the truth, a familiar secular practice can be used to convey a spiritual lesson. Nathan used such an approach to teach David a lesson (2 Sam. 12:1-7). One of the prophets used this method in order to teach Ahab a needed lesson (1 Kgs. 20:30-43). Jesus taught many spiritual lessons by pointing to flocks, herds, fishermen, and tillers of the soil.

One common practice associated with farming is allowing the government to pay farmers not to farm. While this practice had its origins in good intentions, the fact remains that human solutions often end up being more ridiculous than the problems which they were intended to solve.

Brethren, without stretching a point to fit the title of this article, I believe that in many instances we are paying preachers not to preach. We may think it is humorous at best, and pathetic at worst, to pay fishermen not to fish, and farmers not to farm. But there is nothing humorous about a practice which pays preachers more not to preach than to preach.

We would not deny that sectarian preachers are paid to preach human creeds and dogmas, and that they would lose their wages if they started preaching the doctrine of Christ. We would even concede that some churches of Christ will pay some preachers well, provided they don’t preach the whole counsel of God.

But what I’m talking about is the practice of paying preachers to do everything except what they are supposed to do -the work of an evangelist (2 Tim. 4:5). And, the principles involved have nothing to do with a preacher locating with one congregation or even doing the work of an evangelist under the oversight of elders.

I know that there are congregations which emphasize, and support, the preaching of the gospel. God bless them, and may their number increase. And, if it is necessary to stop here and prove that the preaching of the gospel deserves such emphasis, someone is ignorant of what the Bible teaches on this subject in the first place, and any further pleas would fall on dull ears in the second place.

While we may believe in congregational autonomy, and do not believe that recreation and entertainment belong in the mission of the church, we may still be guilty of paying preachers not to preach. Congregational autonomy is one thing, but congregational selfishness is something else; keeping the home congregation solvent is one thing, but keeping the home congregation and the local preacher in luxury while the gospel goes begging is another thing entirely.

Some congregations do not want the elders and deacons to accept their God-given duties, but are willing to pay a preacher to be a “church manager.” If the preacher will do the visiting, tend the flock, be a secretary, and maintain favorable public relations between the local congregation and sister congregations in the area, and represent the church in the eyes of the community, he will be paid, and often paid well.

It matters not that the members can be worldly and derelict in their duty and attendance, or that discipline and spiritual growth can be non-existent. As long as the preacher’s presence gives an air of respectability to a group of adults “playing church,” we pay the preacher.

But, if that same preacher or another one wants to preach the gospel to the lost, wants to help weaker congregations, or establish and confirm the cause of Christ in some near or distant place, the gospel goes begging, or starving. We will pay the preacher well to preach 52 Sundays a year, but if he is willing, able, and has the opportunity to preach twice that much, we will cut off his support.

Another area where our parallel between preaching and farming becomes obvious is in the length of the sermon. Quantity does not necessarily mean quality, but all things being equal, one can preach more Bible in 45 minutes than he can in 20 or 25 minutes.

In spite of all the rationalization we can offer, the fact remains that some congregations will pay a preacher more for a 25 minute sermon than they will for a 45 minute sermon. And, some members would rather listen to 25 minutes of a social gospel than they would to 45 minutes of the saving gospel.

Every congregation from the first one in Jerusalem down to the present hour was established by the preaching of the gospel. When the church of the Lord starts paying preachers not to preach, congregations will cease to be established, and those in existence will not only dry up, but will eventually have their candlesticks removed (cf. Rev. 2:5).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 14, p. 430
July 19, 1990

By Burl Young

One of the most conflicting signals I have ever seen given, is presently being given by a major beer company. After spending millions of dollars encouraging people to drink, they are now attempting to gain respectability by telling their customers that they must at times drink in moderation. They are doing this with the slogan, “know when to say when.” It will be the purpose of this article to show that the real time to say when is before you begin.

In our country there are countless numbers of injured, maimed and murdered individuals who have had their civil rights violated by the drunkard on our highways. With proper research it can be shown that these drunkards are costing millions of dollars and are doing countless damage to lives and property. All of the above costs and damages can be eliminated by knowing when to say when. The time to say when is before you begin.

We should say when before we begin because drinking intoxicating beverages is a sin before God. The Apostle Paul says, “Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” If we say “when” before we begin, we will never be lost because of drunkenness. This alone is proof enough to not partake of the evil brew.

Another reason to say “when” before we begin, is the heartbreak that strong drink may cause. The likelihood of divorce is closely associated with drinking. Not every time, but often, those that would not otherwise be unfaithful to their spouse will be during an intoxicated state. Therefore if one loves his spouse, he will not drink intoxicating beverages. He will say when before he begins.

We should also say “when” before we begin if we want to maintain respect in the community. As hypocritical as it may seem, other drunkards are less tolerant with their peers than the general populace. Often times we have seen a drunkard laughed at when he was unable to function and unable to conduct himself in a respectable manner. The very ones who drink, have little or no patience for one out of control. They should say when before they begin.

Still another reason to say “when” before you begin is a monetary one. Even if you are not a Christian, you should seriously consider the consequences of drinking before taking the first drink. No one ever sets out to become an alcoholic (one who will not quit drinking), but does so after he becomes accustomed to its effect both mentally and physically. If that drunkard had not taken the first drink, he would not have become a drunkard at all. If he had only known when to say when. The time to say when is before you begin.

I will now examine what the Bible says about knowing when to say when. It is apparent that otherwise strong Christians are having a hard time learning when to say when. Even though many times not imbibing themselves, they defend those what choose to take a little wine. What would ever cause a person that loves the Lord, his Church and other Christians, to be foolish enough to advocate something that Paul, Jesus and virtually every New Testament writer opposes? The same passages that condemn drunkenness, also condemn effeminacy, idolatry and adultery. Could the person involved in that activity continue to do so as long as he did not do it a lot? We know when to say when, we must say when before we begin.

But even if the above argument were not true, (which it is) there is still another reason that one must not begin to be a drunkard. That reason is the influence that a Christian must have to influence others. Surely, one would not appreciate the stench of strong drink on the preacher’s breath as he entered the pulpit! Can you imagine the influence a godly elder would have in trying to counsel the ungodly after himself drinking a simple glass of wine? Even though not intoxicated, he would no doubt have lost his influence with those people. Actually, he knows when to say when. Of course, it is before he begins.

In conclusion, if all would say “when” before they begin, there would be no market for the rotten garbage, none would be killed by drunken drivers and not one elder, preacher or other godly person would lose his influence and finally his soul because of it. Let us not give respectability, credibility or any other thing of value to the plague of drunkenness. Yes, as Solomon asked long ago, “Who hath woe? Who hath sorrow? Who hath contentions? Who hath babbling? Who hath wounds without cause? Who hath redness of eyes?” The answer is, they that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine (Prov. 23:29, 30).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 14, p. 429
July 19, 1990

By David Bonner

On the nights of April 9,10,12,13, H.L. Collett engaged Ben F. Vick, Jr. in a debate on church benevolence to saints and non-saints, or just to saints, and whether churches can donate to Boles Home and Potter Children’s Home. The first two nights were in the building where brother Vick preaches (Shelbyville Rd. in Indianapolis, Ind.). The last two nights were in the building where brother Collett preaches (Lafayette Rd., in Noblesville, Ind.). Approximately 125 to 150 attended each night. One reason the audiences were as small as they were, besides just lack of interest, is that Vick is a very “conservative liberal.” He opposes “homes” under elderships, most of the social gospel, all “human organizations” in the church budget except for the benevolent ones he calls “homes.” There were several preachers of his “stripe” who attended from afar and I was impressed with both their sincerity and conservatism. Wherever they are, they are an island. It will be interesting to see where they are in ten years or so. They are much closer to us than they are to the runof-the-mill liberals.

Vick has debated some before. This was Collett’s first debate. Both men did a good job of presenting their convictions. Good conduct prevailed in the audience and interest was high. As I was moderator for Collett (Mark Bass of Illinois was moderator for Vick) many have asked me who won! My reply is “The Lord.” When truth and error come together, if truth in fact is presented, error is no match. Space would not allow a full discussion of the debate but I’ll make just a few points.

Vick, on the subject of benevolence, argued James 1:27 as being for both the individual and church. He argued Galatians 6:10 as church benevolence and that it was the same case as 1 Corinthians 16:1-3; 2 Corinthians 8,9. He also used 2 Corinthians 9:13 (“all men”) to try to prove church benevolence to non-saints. H.L. adequately showed that even the grammar of James 1:27 would not allow church action. He showed, by studying all of Galatians 6, that it was both individual and the good was spiritual. On 2 Corinthians 9:13 H.L. showed the “unto them” was the “poor among the saints” (Rom. 15:26) and the “all” was the other saints primarily in Jerusalem (Jews) who would have their prejudice broken down toward the Gentile sending people in said churches. H.L. also met the tears on the occasion by showing the March of Dimes will not care for heart patients or even orphans because it is not their work. He showed the same is true for each local church of Christ. Benevolence is not the local church’s work. Vick argued O.T. Israel robbed God (Mal. 3:8) and inferred no benevolence to the non-saints was just that. This really backfired on him when Collett showed we rob God when we use the church treasury in an unauthorized way (for the non-saint). Vick used the argument about a non-saint attending who got sick in the assembly and said then we could not call the 911 number for an ambulance or use “church water” or a towel to wipe his brow. Collett said the first saint who got to the sick man would both call 911 and wipe his brow as an individual but Vick’s brethren in order to have church action to decide to do the same would have to call an eldership meeting to make the decision and before the decision could be made, the man might die.

On the Boles Homes part, Collett asked Vick where in the Bible any local church ever donated to a family, showing the church made distribution to each man as any man had need (Acts 4:35). Vick reasoned to help a child the church would have to give to his father. This was a subtle way of trying to get the non-saint in the church budget. Collett asked Vick if the church donated to one widow, would that be donating to a widow’s home. Vick said, “Yes.” This backfired when Collett showed family is a collective word and one person can’t make up a family. Vick does not believe in missionary societies, he says, in the church budget or works of a church under a board. This also backfired when Collett read from a Boles Home publication which states, “Boles Home is a ministry of Churches of Christ,” and the same publication shows Boles Home is under a board. Collett showed the Southern Baptist Convention receives funds from local Baptist Churches and owns and operates orphan homes, Bible colleges, and evangelizes. He then showed the Oregon Christian Missionary Society also receives funds from Christian Churches and owns and operates both orphans homes and Bible colleges as well as evangelizes. He showed the American Christian Missionary Society (started in 1849) was under a board and evangelized. Then he showed Boles Home is the name of a corporation to provide a home for destitute and dependent children. And they “see” their “task as missionary in nature” (from one of their publications). Collett showed Boles Home is not like a missionary society but is a missionary society. By definition a missionary society is an organization or society designed to do the work or mission of the church. To those who view general benevolence as the mission of the church, an organization or society to perform this work “For Churches of Christ” is surely a missionary society.

Vick argued, if Galatians 6:6 is not authority for church support of preachers then Collett could not get his salary from the church. Collett showed 1 Corinthians 9 and other passages would include church support of preachers. Collett showed Galatians 6:6 is on the subject of the taught one having fellowship with the teacher in all good things which he teaches by living the teachings. It is not on paying a preacher.

We really believe Vick and his people generally are sincere. If they could just learn how to establish Bible authority, how the word church is used and how a local church may function, there might be great hope they will come to the truth. Truth was taught. H.L. Collett was well prepared having made well over 200 charts. Robert Bond flipped his charts and Larry Ritchie kept his time.

In conclusion, possibly the strongest argument Collett made, after Vick had made many of his points, was to state that about ten years ago he changed from Vick’s basic position having preached it for 12 years at the time. And why did he change? He stated he changed because of the same kind of arguments the audience had just heard Vick make, which will not hold water. Collett then affirmed he sends to the social security department of the U.S. Government which helps over 38,000,000 orphans, widows, and aged men so that ought to take care of James 1:27 for him. Then Collett showed that does not take care of James 1:27 for “visit” has to do with personally inspecting with the eyes for the purpose of doing good. Collett also asked Vick if an orphan child were still an orphan after a husband/wife adopted him. Vick said, “No.” Collett then asked if a child were still an orphan when taken in by Boles Home. Vick said, “No.” Collett showed if that is so, then no person or church obeys James 1:27 by donating to Boles Home since they are not orphans. Collett had charts contrasting a natural family with Boles Home, which Vick claimed was a substitute family, with about sixteen points of contrast. This made Vick’s position absurd. How can a rich board have poor kids in a family?

I believe debates do good and appreciate all the work H.L. put into this one. May honest people seek (Jn.7:17).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 14, pp. 423-424
July 19, 1990