Truth Magazine

By P.J. Casebolt

When Nathanael questioned the possibility of any good thing coming out of Nazareth, Philip replied, “Come and see” (Jn. 1:46).

Back in my boyhood days, before modern swimming pools became popular, we had to find our own swimming place in some creek or river. The swimming season was not limited by Memorial Day on the front end or Labor Day on the back end. You went in as early and stayed as late as you could stand it.

When some doubting Thomas questioned your selection of a swimming hole, you just said, “Come on in, water’s fine.” The next move was up to the skeptic.

When it comes to preaching and skeptics, I prefer the invitation, “Come on in” to the “Come and see” version. Some brethren stand at a safe distance from the pulpit to do their seeing, when they need to get right in the pulpit and test the waters under question. I’ve learned that it does little good to stay in the water and try to argue with some swimming coach on the bank. You don’t make much progress converting the coach, and you don’t get much swimming done. And you won’t do much better standing in the pulpit trying to argue with some skeptic in the pew.

One brother who held an office job in a plant had it all figured out that when you figured the preacher’s salary on an eight-hour-per-day, 40-hour-per-week basis, the preacher wasn’t doing too badly. I informed that brother (in the business meeting), that for his information, I had stayed up until midnight the past Saturday, at his father’s house, trying to convert the skeptic’s future brother-in-law.

Then, the doubter switched gears, and said that a preacher wouldn’t last a day at hard labor in a steel mill. Before I could answer, a new convert who was attending his first business meeting replied, “No, and if we put some of you fellows in the pulpit, the rest of us wouldn’t last an hour.” And I was afraid of what effect this typical business meeting skirmish would have on the faith of the new convert!

On the other end of the spectrum, that same critic’s brother in the flesh held a time-study job in the same plant. He wrote an article in one of the papers, analyzing the preacher’s salary as compared to the salary of a common laborer in the average plant, and the laborer came out way ahead of the preacher from a financial standpoint. Some of the brethren were ready to tar-and-feather that brother for revealing the discrepancies between the salaries of preachers and those of brethren in general.

Since I began to preach, the church has made considerable progress in the area of the preacher’s wages, as well as in the area of attitude toward the work of an evangelist. But, there are still some brethren who will deliberately compare their net take-home pay (after taxes, social security, vacations, clothing allowances, pensions, hospitalization, etc.) with a preacher’s gross wages which are listed on the financial report for everyone to see. When this glaring discrepancy was pointed out to one brother, he expressed surprise that a preacher had to pay federal income tax.

Some preachers live in a house provided by the brethren, and while this practice has both its advantages and disadvantages, the preacher has to figure the fair rental value of that house on his income tax. Another thing that some brethren overlook is the fact that a preacher returns a portion of his wages in the form of a contribution (“as prospered” – say 10 percent), back into the collection every week. So, the church is actually paying the preacher (say 10 percent) less than what the financial report on the bulletin board indicates.

And, this isn’t “playing with figures,” it is a simple statement of fact which will stand any accounting test you want to use. A preacher needs (and wants), to contribute of his prosperity like any other member, but how many brethren do you know who make a regular contribution of their wages back to the company which pays those wages? Some may purchase stocks or savings bonds, but they don’t make a flat-out contribution to the treasury of the company that employs them. And remember, we aren’t talking about spiritual benefits or treasures or sacrifices “laid up in heaven,” we’re still talking about the salaries paid and drawn here on earth.

Jobs and wages vary from area to area. Some preachers preach in depressed areas where brethren have low incomes, and some preachers preach where the economy is prosperous, or in what we call a “mission field” where the church is weak. That’s why churches sent to Paul’s needs while he was establishing congregations where there were no brethren to pay his wages.

During my preaching years, I have been grossly underpaid at times, and on other occasions I have received sufficient wages. I have never been overpaid, for I will not allow that to happen. I have turned down a raise in wages with the suggestion that it be sent to some other preacher who needed it worse than did 1. Most preachers are just as concerned about how the Lord’s money is spent as are the brethren. Some brethren will waste the Lord’s money on some material project, then try to economize when paying the preacher.

The pros and cons of the preacher’s salary need to be considered, but I refuse to be drawn into a lengthy argument, and placed in the position of defending my God-given right to live of the gospel. The head of the church handed down that decision when the church was established, and we have examples from the Old Testament (Neh. 13:10-14). Some preachers have returned to secular employment rather than argue with brethren, and a few preachers were either hirelings to begin with or turned into such. But none of that changes what the Bible teaches about preaching or supporting the gospel.

Rather than argue with brethren about the preacher’s salary, I just say, “Come on in, the water’s fine.”

But before they do, I suggest that they learn how to swim.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 8, pp. 238-239
April 19, 1990

By Ed Harrell

“What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” Matthew 19:6.

Although divorce was uncommon, such sins as “adultery,” “desertion, ” and common law marriage, caused frontier church leaders considerable concern. Most ante-bellum Christian churches were cautious and circumspect in inspecting the marital status of their members and rigorously disciplined offenders. Some preachers, especially during the early years of the movement, believed that it was sinful for Christians to marry “infidels or unbelievers,” a ban which included everyone outside the Disciples of Christ, and it was not unusual for a church member to be unchurched for such a violation. James S. Lamar vividly described the policy of the congregation in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania:

If a man married a woman who was not a member of the church, however moral and upright, and however respectful in her bearing towards Christianity and its ordinances, he was called to account for marrying contrary to the word of the Lord, and he must say – perhaps in the presence of his wife – that he was sorry for it; and moreover – though this probably gave the poor woman some comfort – he must promise that he would not do so any more!

Most church leaders agree, however, even during the 1830’s, that while the brother who married an “unbeliever” was “to be pitied,” he was not to be “put out.” Alexander Campbell wrote: “Certainly no Christian can . . . exclude a person simply for marrying any person not forbidden by the laws of the land.”

If most Disciples leaders believed that compliance with the “laws of the land” was all that was demanded for a scriptural marriage, they were not so liberal on the question of divorce. The generally accepted standard was: “There is no release then to husband or wife from the marriage contract unless the other party has been guilty of fornication.” A few church leaders were liberal enough to concede that “desertion,” a practice not uncommon on the frontier, was a just cause for divorce and remarriage, but they were the exceptions.

In general, the churches were probably more diligent in enforcing their code of morality in this area than in any other. Cases abound in the early church records of members being excluded for “bigamy,” “having two husbands living,” and “marrying a man who has a living wife,” as well as such sins as “adultery” and “fornication.” John Dexter was arraigned before the Wellsburg, Ohio, church for having taken a second wife after their first one had “repudiated” him. Dexter, who had not gone through the formality of getting a divorce after his first unfortunate marriage, was instructed by the church to return to his first wife. Dexter traced his first spouse down only to find that she had secured a divorce and remarried. The church then ruled that the jilted husband was free to marry so he returned home for a belated wedding ceremony with the second Mrs. Dexter. Unfortunately, “some informality in the late marriage was discovered” but the determined Dexter, according to the church record, “was again married to his last wife” (Quest For a Christian America, pp. 196-198).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 8, p. 227
April 19, 1990

By Wilbert Garingo Enostacion

In 1988, this writer published a directory of churches in the Philippines which sought to be Christians only were opposed to any change on any New Testament (NT) Pattern, and adhere to the stand on purity of doctrines as taught by Christ and propagated by the apostles, seeking to please God rather than men. It had a record of 199 local congregations throughout the country in 12 regions, in 28 cities, in 79 provinces and in 50 million people. Though this directory was not a complete list of all churches of Christ opposed to liberalism, yet about 50 percent of all existing churches were listed. This was, however, the first attempt to list churches loyal to the Lord from Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao.

Historical Note

The gospel in the Philippines had its beginning during the war between the Americans and Spaniards (note, the Philippine Islands were under Spanish rule for 400 years). When the Americans came in the 1898 to 1900s, there were true Christians among those soldiers who came to convert natives, not by guns, but by the gospel of our Lord (note again, the gospel has been sown in the land for 90 years now). Churches were established in some parts of the nation; they grew by the mercy of God and multiplied in number. No one knows, however, how strong these churches were, but the fact is they grew in faith and in number.

In the early 30s, a more accurate record says that, an American missionary named George Benson was on board a ship on his way to China; the ship met a great typhoon, and sought refuge in an island near Mindoro, in southern Philippines. The white man, embarked and went to preach to some natives. A man named, brother Adap, was the first convert to the Lord. After the departure of this white teacher, though limited in scriptural knowledge, Adap preached and was able to convert a young man, who unknowingly would soon become a well-known preacher; the young man’s name was Diosdado P. Menor, of Calapan, Oriental Mindoro. Menor toured the nation and converted not one, but hundreds, if not thousands of lost souls to the fold of God. Though now advanced in years, he still holds the beacon and preaches to anyone whenever opportunity demands.

The Issues

In those years from the 30s to the 50s, churches of Christ in the nation did not know of any issues that divided churches. The dividing issues came after 1955. Some U.S. missionaries came to preach the gospel and oversee some native works; this sparked the issues of division. One of the early native preachers first to notice such departures from the Pattern, was Romulo Agduma of Cotabato in far flung town of Mindanao; later on Victorio R. Tibayan of Southern Tagalog region also recognized the error. They stood opposed to all changes in N.T. church doctrines and practices, calling for book, chapter and verse for every doctrine and practice, especially the support of institutions from the church treasury, the sponsoring church method of organization, and general benevolence to the public. Many other native Christians followed their calls for “return” to the N.T. Pattern from Mindanao to Luzon. A great battle of debates was held in some quarters of the country. Anti-ism was the plea! Anti to all unscriptural practices swept strong and was alive!

The controversy over the issues gained support from churches and individual Christians. News of its fights against liberalism reached the USA. American brethren found comfort to hear that struggles to stand on God’s pure N.T. Pattern were ringing far and near throughout the world to defend the truth against these unscriptural innovations of churches who claimed to be Christians. American liberal missionaries had long been in the nation; they had “planted” the seed of liberalism; Bible colleges were established in Luzon and Mindanao (now, they boast of their 6 training schools for sowers of errors). Ralph Brashears, a former U.S. pilot bomber during World War II, came back in 1947 and founded a Bible school in Tayug, Pangasinan; which later became well-known as the Philippine Bible College when it moved to Baguio City in the early 50s. Meanwhile, in Zamboanga City, a certain U.S. missionary, surnamed Hamilton, founded a school in 1950; later on it was known to be Zamboanga Bible College during the tenure of another U.S. missionary, Ray MayHue, where this writer schooled in 1964.

The Fight and Support

Those who have known the fights for truth and error know that very few are willing to stand with them for the Lord. Many are spectators, and are just seeing whoever wins the battle to later enjoy the blessings of those who won. They are hesitant and unwilling to jump into the bowl of fights! They are the critics-cowards-opportunists!

It was in the early 60s that the U.S. started to pour support to worthy, sound and faithful preachers in the land. In 1970, there was a great debate that was recorded in the annals of Philippine history for truth against error between J.T. Smith and Filipino debater, Eusebio Lacuata in M’lang, Cotabato. Not that the Filipino liberals were more vulnerable than their American cohorts; however, American liberals in the Philippines were cowards to face any debate even to this very day, so Lacauata took the flag.

From that time on, many native preachers were awaken from deep sleep of error and went out from liberalism (including WGE). A team of American preachers started to fly to the nation on a series of lectures starting in 1970. These includes: Roy E. Cogdill, Cecil Willis, Connie W. Adams, J.T. Smith, James P. Needham, Dudley Ross Spears, Earl Robertson, Larry Ray Hafley, Leslie and Roy Diestelkamp, Jady Copeland, Frank Butler, Keith Burnett, William (‘Bill’) Battles, Wallace H. Little, Arnold Granke, Jr., Paul Casebolt, James C. Puterbaugh, Hiram Hutto, Leo Plyler, Ben Shropshire, Bob Buchanon, Harold Trimble, Donald Wilson, Carl Main, Lowell D. Williams, Howard Jones, Rick Lanning, Vernon Love, Walter D. Bunnell, Jerry Parks, John Humphries and possibly others inadvertently omitted.

Many congregations that were established before the war are now dead. If these exist and have kept the faith, they are still struggling. The main reason was this: they don’t have full-time workers to work with them. The work for the Lord would have filled the 50 million people with God’s teachings, had workers in the past obtained enough support. However, it was shocking even to know the reason behind such declining assistance from U.S. churches had happened.

Revelation

Connie W. Adams reveals the fact of the matter, he wrote: “There was a time, a few years ago, when you could write a letter, an article, or make a speech about the work in some corner of the world where you had personal contact, and brethren were eager to help. Not any more! I notice a continually lessening interest in supporting men in foreign lands in the last few years. Some churches have been badly burned with men who turned out to be unsound in faith, immoral in personal life, or so cantankerous in inter-personal relations with brethren that were left with no choice but to stop supporting them” (Searching the Scriptures, Vol. 28, No. 11, Nov. 1987).

True enough, it can be testified, that in the past decades, a mere letter of endorsement to some U.S. churches for Filipino preachers’ support and a check was expected to come within 30 days. But some native preachers abused such trust and confidence, and committed mistakes; so preachers coming their ways, suffer such tremendous blockage. Adams further wrote: “Those of us who have stuck our necks out to help a brother in a far-away place are sometimes made to feel as though we had a knife stuck in our backs by the very ones we have worked the hardest to help. It not only leaves egg on our faces, it seriously tarnishes our credibility. The next time we go to bat to help a brother, however deserving he may be, our appeals are taken much less seriously (emp. mine, wge). The end result is that we find harder and harder to support foreign workers” (Ibid.).

At present, we can see many good preachers who have gone to secular jobs and have departed the preaching field, unloading the “yoke” (Matt. 11:28-30) of coverting lost souls due to lack of financial support for their families.

Many no longer burn their heads under the heat of the sun, or walk miles and miles or pass a day without food for the Lord. It is clear that many lost “fires” and courage due to the wrongdoings committed by their predecessors, and the “blanket condemnation” employed by some U.S. churches; it’s a Damocles sword that hangs over their heads! Nonetheless, not only in this land such apostate deeds happen, but even in America and other parts of the world. We can see records of some U.S. preachers who turned out to be unsound in faith, unfaithful in the Lord’s service, many committed the sin of immorality, deception, and basically all evils; yet, there were those who remain unstained by such sins (2 Tim. 2:20-21), and “meet for the Master’s use.”

A Great Appeal

We, preachers in this third generation, plead to all U.S. brethren, open once again your loving arms to our needs and remove the “blanket condemnation” from us that “all Filipino preachers are liars!” Brethren, “do not burn the house because of some rats,” let’s help together find those rats and burn them!

Let “bygones be bygones”; when God forgives, he forgets (Heb. 8:12). Let’s join hands again, like the great days of old, where a single letter of recommendation is enough to find support, and churches are eager to assist. We are now in the last decade of the 20th century; the gospel in the Philippines depends on the hands of God’s workers today; “for we are laborers together with God” (1 Cor. 3:9). Huge works need to be done and accomplished; many preachers, both young and old alike, possess great abilities of disseminating God’s saving gospel, but could not do it to the full strength of their capabilities for lack of financial support as God demands it (1 Cor. 9:14; 1 Tim. 5:8). Many are wanting to be full-time warriors of God, but lack warfare to go into battles for truth against error, crushing down speculation and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God (2 Cor. 10:4-5).

Conclusion

Its time again to “look into the field, for they are white ready to harvest” (Jn. 4:35). Truly, let us sound again the battle cry of the Lord: “The harvest, truly is plenteous, but the laborers are few” (Matt. 9:35-38). Who among you brethren, dear readers, will be the first one to send “reapers” into the field? Many are crying, “Here, am I, send me!” Who will act first? If you can help, please write me at: P.O. Box 09, San Fernando 2500, La Union Philippines. I can put you in contact with these faithful men, sound in faith and teachings; if the church where you worship will help assist in preaching the word, or if you will do so, contact me. Its our prayer to our heavenly Father up above. Amen!

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 7, pp. 198-199
April 5, 1990

By Andy Alexander

Our service to God consists of two basic elements. First, we must be totally dedicated to Christ and second, we must worship him as he directs in his word. In teaching the Samaritan woman about worship that would please God, Jesus told her, “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (Jn. 4:24). We must want to serve God and then we must search his word which is the truth, in order to learn the form of worship which he will accept from us (Jn. 17:17).

We must have our hearts in every part of our service to God, however, our devoted service must be accompanied with the truth as revealed in God’s word if it is to be acceptable to him. The Scriptures teach that a wise heart seeks knowledge and that we should devote our hearts wholly to God by walking in his statutes and by keeping his commandments (Prov. 18:15; 1 Kgs. 8:61). We are also told that putting the law of God in our hearts will keep us from slipping (Psa. 37:3 1; 119:80,111). Religion is to come from the heart, but it is to come from a heart that studies the will of God and strives to follow every command that God has given.

The New Testament is filled with admonitions for the Christian to study God’s word and be able to answer any man that asks concerning the hope that we have in Christ (2 Tim. 2:15; 2 Pet. 3:18; 1 Pet. 3:15). We are also taught that the things that have been written can be understood when we read (Eph. 3:3-4). The reason they have been written is because, as Jeremiah the prophet said in the long ago, “I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Jer. 10:23). Man cannot find the way to God by the feelings of his own heart. God has to direct our steps and we must follow those steps with complete trust that they will lead us to him.

The foundation upon which most people have built their religion is their own heart. If something feels right in the heart then it is assumed that it will please God. The Pharisees practiced this same type of religion in the first century and Jesus Christ condemned it as vain religion (Matt. 15:9). This upset the religious leaders of the day and brought his crucifixion.

No one of sound mind would use this type of logic in any other realm of his life, but when it comes to religion, logic is thrown out the window and replaced with the feelings of the heart. For example, would you let a doctor operate on you because he felt in his heart that you had a brain tumor without ever taking an x-ray to verify his feelings? No doubt, you would seek another opinion. Now apply that same logic to religion. What would you think of a preacher who told you that it really didn’t matter what the Bible says, you just go by what feels right in your own heart?

The Scriptures warn us about following the feelings of our hearts (Prov. 28:26). Jeroboam devised a religion in his heart, but it was not acceptable to God (1 Kgs. 12:33). The Israelites were instructed to remember the commandments of God and not follow after their own heart and what they thought was right in their own eyes (Num. 15:39). Our religion today is no different, it must come from a pure heart that is following the commandments of God. Now, let’s apply this principle to religions that men have set up today.

The Methodist Church substitutes sprinkling for immersion and claims this is pleasing to God. How do they know this? By the feeling in their heart. God instructs us that baptism is a burial in water and all of us know the difference between burying and sprinkling (Rom. 6:3-4). If you claim there is no difference, then the next time your dog or cat dies, just sprinkle a little dirt over it and in a few days you will know the difference. Are we trying to please God or ourselves?

The Baptist church teaches that baptism does not save. God says just the opposite in his inspired word. “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21). Read the context of this verse and you will find that Noah was “saved by water” and we in a like figure are saved by water. It is not baptism alone that saves, but the baptism of a penitent believer (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 7, p. 205
April 5, 1990