Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

The first century church was no different from the twentieth century church in the fact that doctrinal differences threatened the unity of the church. Only the issues are different. Both faced apostasy from within. The manner in which apostasy was treated in the first century is a pattern for how it always should be treated. The controversy surrounding the Judaizers is instructive for understanding how apostasy should be handled. Recorded in Acts 15 and Galatians, the apostasy of the Judaizers threatened to make the church another sect of Judaism instead of a world religion.

The Threat of the Judaizers

The first century church was troubled by Jewish Christians who compelled Gentile Christians to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses in order to be saved (Acts 15:5). The leadership for this position originated among converted Pharisees (Acts 15:5).

The controversy became intense. The apostles gathered in Jerusalem by revelation (Gal. 2:2) to decide whether or not the Gentiles had to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses in order to be saved. The apostle Paul would not allow the false teachings of the Judaizers to go unchallenged; he said, “We gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you” (Gal. 2:5), In the Jerusalem conference, the Lord’s gospel prevailed and the conclusion of the conference was written in a letter to be distributed to the churches: “Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment” (Acts 15:24).

Apostolic decree, divine revelation, did not stop the Judaizing brethren. They continued circulating among churches, teaching a perverted “gospel” (Gal. 1:6-9). What stance did the early church take toward these Judaizers? If we can understand how the early church handled the false teachings of the Judaizers, we will know how churches should handle similar false teachers and teaching today.

How the Judaizers Were Handled

The book of Galatians demonstrates how the early church handled the Judaizers. They did not wait for “decades of brotherly disagreement” (as one brother recently suggested) before confronting the issue head on. Indeed, Christianity had only been preached for a mere 20-25 years before the book of Galatians was written. The apostasy did not develop immediately after the first sermon in Acts 2 was preached, for the first Gentile (Cornelius) was not converted until 8-10 years after Pentecost. Hence, there was not enough time for “decades of brotherly discussion” before Paul wrote Galatians, calling for the ostracizing of the Judaizers. Instead, the incipient forms of the Judaizers’ error gave birth to the book of Galatians with the instructions for how to handle the apostasy. The pattern suggested by our brother (not to refer to one another as false teachers until decades of “brotherly disagreement”) does not fit the pattern of New Testament teaching.

The Judaizers were teaching a doctrine which “troubled churches” (1:7) and was a perversion of the gospel of Christ (1:7). Those who taught this doctrine were accursed of God (1:8-9). Paul described these men as “false brethren” (2:4). Their tactics were sometimes less than forthright (2:4).

Paul did not suggest tolerating these brethren for a number of years. Instead, he “gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you” (2:5). In giving the allegory of the bondwoman/freewoman (Hagar/Sarah), Paul commanded the Galatians to “cast out the bondwoman and her son” (4:30).

The words of Sarah to Abraham (which, however, in Gen. xxi. 12 are expressly approved by God and confirmed with a view to fulfillment), requiring the explusion of Hagar and her son from the house. From this, looking to the scope of the allegory, the Galatians are to infer the exclusion of the non-free Jews, who were now persecuting the free Christians, from the people of God (H.A.W. Meyer, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, p. 211).

The Galatians were warned that a “little leaven leavens the whole lump” as an exhortation to break association with the Judaizers (5:8-9). The dangerous influence of this false doctrine had threatened the soul (“subverting your souls,” Acts 15:24), causing men to fall from grace (Gal. 5:14). The church was commanded to break fellowship with the Judaizing apostates to prevent further spread of the damnable heresy among them.

This is the biblical pattern for handling false doctrine. The pattern emphasizes that apostasy is a departure from Bible teaching; there was no effort to look for a sociological cause of the apostasy which was more important than the doctrinal issues. Instead, the Judaizers did not teach what God revealed and Paul commanded that they be excised from among the brethren. There was no proposal of a unity-indiversity. We should be content to follow this pattern in confronting modern day apostasies.

Determination By Sociological Interpretation of History Or From the Bible?

Recently, some have sought to find a pattern for handling modern departures from the revelation of God by looking at our own restoration history. The entire approach takes us awayfrom the divinely inspired biblical text as the means of analyzing departures from the truth and shifts to an analysis of uninspired church history as the solution. There is a generous helping of “comparing ourselves to ourselves” (2 Cor. 10:12) in learning how to handle teachers of admittedly unrevealed doctrines.

Brother Ed Harrell has written an extended series of articles in Christianity magazine on unity as it relates to the divorce and remarriage controversy. Beginning with “Homer Hailey: False Teacher?” in the November 1988 issue, there have been 14 articles so far and the end is not yet. He interprets our own history through the colored glasses of the neo-orthodox, sociological interpretation of history suggested by H. Richard Niebuhr (The Social Sources of Denominationalism). A particular interpretation of history, which is presently dominating the study of history, becomes the foundation for positing a theory for how to handle false doctrine in the church. This theory claims that social differences are more responsible for religious division than doctrinal differences are. Social characteristics include such things as a person’s economic and educational status. Looking back to the conflict over the missionary society and mechanical instruments of music in the church, the author related that opponents were ambivalent throughout their lives and continued to write letters of recommendation to preachers who supported the missionary society almost to the end of their lives. The schism came only after decades of discussion conducted in the context of brotherly trust. The author said, “. . . every division involves more basic issues than technical arguments over points of doctrines (Christianity [January, 1990], p. 6). This means that what was more important than the doctrinal disagreement was why the controversy persisted and became intolerable.

A similar picture of the conflict over church supported orphan homes, colleges, and old folks homes was drawn. The author suggested that men who had convictions against these institutions never hinted that institutional supporters were false teachers, or, indeed, that they were unworthy of fellowship. These brethren continued to work together for decades in spite of their doctrinal differences.

The author states the division came only after decades of disagreement. The doctrinal issues are merely the focal points for schism, but sociological causes were much more basic than technical arguments over points of doctrine.

Where is this headed? Behind every article in the Christianity series lies the author’s promise to explain his view of unity and fellowship as it relates to modern controversies over divorce and remarriage. The thrust of the argument is that we should not allow disagreements over such matters as divorce and remarriage to cause us to identify brethren as false teachers or to break fellowship. We should be tolerant of those who teach such false doctrines on divorce and remarriage as the following: (a) Alien sinners should be accepted in whatever marriage they are in when they are baptized; (b) The guilty party in a divorce for fornication has the right to remarriage; (c) A person who had unscripturally divorced and remarried can repent of having committed adultery (defined to mean “breaking a marriage”) and continue living with this present mate; (d) A Christian deserted by an unbeliever has the right to remarriage; etc. (see Christianity [November 1988], p. 8, for his reference to the 5 or 6 positions on this issue). Brother Harrell’s placing of the divorce and remarriage issue in the category of Romans 14 is a call for unity-in-diversity, a doctrinal position with far-reaching consequences.

The issue at stake in this discussion of the grounds of unity in this: Shall we determine the bounds offellowship by an appeal to the inspired Scriptures or by an appeal to uninspired history? Should someone succeed in citing many evidences of man’s inconsistency with the Scriptures, still we must follow the Scriptures. We can no more determine what is right and wrong for God’s people by an appeal to our restoration fathers, than the Catholics can determine right and wrong by an appeal to the apostolic fathers! If we find some clear statement of truth from the Bible in the writings of a restoration preacher it is fine to quote it, but the Bible itself must be our final court of appeal. The sociological interpretation of church history cannot guide us through the uncharted course which lies ahead of us. Like every other philosophy, the sociological interpretation of history one day will be discarded to the junk pile (cf. 1 Cor. 7:31). Like all such philosophies and interpretations, this one contains some grains of truth, but only the Bible contains the whole counsel of God necessary to the salvation of our souls. Let us go to the Scriptures to determine where we shall stand! The word of God alone will give us the direction and guidance we need to chart a steady course during the winds of change.

Furthermore, the author’s description of the institutional division focuses attention on the “brotherhood” rather than the local congregation. It is true that brethren discussed some of the institutional principles pro and con during the period of the 1920s/1940s when there were very few of these human institutions. Brethren rarely faced the practical application of the principles during those decades. To describe the institutional conflict saying “brethren continued to work and worship together in spite of their differences,” does not focus attention on what happened in local churches when they faced the practical application of the principles involved. Churches all over America were torn apart by men who pushed to place a $25 a month contribution to an orphan home or the Herald of Truth in the budget, over the objection of conscientious men, as a means of declaring where the congregation stood. Brethren in these local congregations did not “work and worship together in spite of their differences. ” The decision to put a contribution in the budget divided the church in that community and at that time (not after decades of brotherly discussion). This same scene was repeated in many local churches over a period of 20 years until the lines were so clearly drawn that a social historian could write about the division. Being without intercongregational organization, the New Testament church does not divide in such a decisive manner, marked by one historic occasion as do the denominations (such as the annual convention of a denomination). Division occurs in local congregations, over and over again throughout the country.

During the time this was occurring, the journals circulated by and among brethren printed regular exchanges in which the Bible verses under dispute were discussed. Exchanges regularly occurred until those who loved the truth could discern where the truth lay. Many were convinced of the truth by these journals, church bulletins, and preaching in local pulpits and gospel meetings. Churches were kept from apostasy by preachers, elders and other strong brethren who identified the false teaching and false teachers so that other elders, deacons, and members could identify the error and abstain from it.

The cause of the division was not sociological; it was spiritual apostasy. In looking for underlying causes, we focus attention away from the word of God and the departures from it to concentrate on statistics from social history. The church cannot preserve the truth and avoid apostasy by discriminating among its members on the basis of differences in educational level and economic background, but it can confront brethren who depart from the revealed truth. That is what God commanded us to watch and guard against: “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch” (Acts 20:29-31).

Conclusion

Should we face a similar situation on divorce and remarriage to that which faced brethren in the 1950s, we will see churches across America torn asunder by false doctrines. There have been recurring discussions and debates on the principles involved at least since the 1950s when E.C. Fuqua’s theories became well known. There has already been an extended period of discussing principles (“decades of brotherly discussion”), but as society becomes more immoral and as unscriptural divorces increase, brethren cannot escape facing the practical application of the principles. The scenario likely to develop will be like this: a congregation will be faced with a test case of someone in a second marriage following a divorce for some reason other than fornication. Such an individual comes to be baptized or restored, without any intention of leaving his second mate. The test case will force the issue; the different positions which brethren hold will be discussed and the church will divide. Already this has happened in several cases and it is likely to be repeated, not because brethren of ill temper are bound and determined not to get along with one another, but because of the prevalent divorce in our society spilling over into the church, where brethren with different beliefs face the issue.

We are willing to engage in brotherly discussion as long as our brothers are willing to participate; we are not imposing a limit of time for brotherly discussion (e.g., we are ready even today, after more than a century, to enter a brotherly discussion of the instrumental music question). However, we are committed to opposing error. We shall oppose it in its incipient and mature forms; we shall oppose it inside and outside the church; we shall oppose it when preached by those who are somewhat and those who are not. We shall always stand opposed to a unity-in-diversity approach to sin. Therefore, we stand opposed to brother Harrell’s assertion that the divorce and remarriage controversy (both the teaching and the practice) belongs in the category of Romans 14, resulting in a unity-in-diversity doctrine on divorce and remarriage. We reject his condemnation of those who oppose false teaching on the subject and his proposal for toleration of unscriptural teachings and practices.

Brother Harrell’s call for “decades of brotherly discussion” is hard to reconcile with his condemnation of those brothers in Christ who kindly replied to brother Hailey’s false teaching on divorce and remarriage (alien sinners are not amenable to Christ’s teaching on divorce and remarriage) and with the closing of the pages of Christianity to opposing viewpoints. These actions tend to stifle brotherly discussion, not to encourage it.

I would like to invite brother Harrell to join in an open brotherly discussion of the issues which divide us. Since brother Harrell believes that there should be decades of brotherly discussion before any division, he should be willing to participate in such a discussion. Many brethren would like to see him, as one editor of Christianity, open its pages to the brotherly discussion of both sides, even as the pages of Guardian of Truth are open. Allowing a few lines in the “letters” column is not fair, brotherly discussion. The openness of the pages of Guardian of Truth for brotherly discussion has been demonstrated by the following: (a) offering space to brother Hailey, (b) publishing an exchange with Jerry Bassett, (c) making arrangements for an exchange between Glen Lovelady and Colly Caldwell, (d) arrangements for publishing another exchange. Should he desire for the simultaneous publication of discussion in both papers, we would be delighted to participate. Should brother Harrell be unwilling to open the pages of Christianity for a fair, brotherly discussion, we are willing to go the extra mile to allow him to respond in our pages. We are saddened that no space for response has been given to those attacked by brother Harrell in the pages of Christianity in his article defending brother Homer Hailey with reference to his teaching that alien sinners are not amenable to God’s law of divorce and remarriage, which resulted in the loss of several members from the Belen, NM church. Neither has space been given to those who have replied to his material on the bounds of Christian fellowship. Recognizing our own fallibility and having a commitment to the infallible word of God, we encourage a brotherly discussion of the issues before us.

We plead for a calm period of Bible study of the issue which threatens to divide us. Let us bring out the Bible passages and openly discuss them dispassionately, so that the truth of God’s word can be plainly seen for all to follow. The differences in conviction which we hold will inevitably lead us down divergent paths. Rather than traveling different paths, let us study to see where the truth leads us and walk in unity in the path of righteousness, leaving those who choose to depart from the path of righteousness to walk alone down their chosen road. The truth is sufficient to save us and to unite us, but we must seek and find that truth (Jn. 8:32; 17:17-21). If we are to be one in Christ as God’s people, we must lay aside every human desire and doctrine, yielding ourselves to the authority of Jesus Christ.

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment (1 Cor. 1:10).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 8, pp. 226, 246-248
April 19, 1990

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