Truth Magazine

By Burl Young

Now to you city boys, the above will not mean a whole lot, but those of you who have been blessed with a life in rural America will probably know what it means. For those that do not know. I will try to explain. It means that even a hog with no sense of direction, without the use of his eyes, and just groping along in the darkness, will occasionally find an acorn to eat. I wish to make application of this to the preaching of the gospel.

In 1 Corinthians 3:7, Paul stated that he planted, Apollos watered and God gave the increase. It seems that this is often used to make apology for preachers that sometimes preach several years without any responses to the gospel. It is my conviction that the gospel always gets results. For a preacher to preach for years and years in a local area, taking full-time support for this work and not having any results ‘ is to border on the absurd. At the very best, it is bad judgment on the part of those supporting him and at the worst it is intentionally failing to do God’s will with his money. Because I have preached for some of our larger congregations and some of the smaller ones too, I feel I can be fairly objective in this matter.

I have stated above that the preaching of the gospel always gets results. If this is taken to mean that it always, on every occasion results in a conversion, it is taken other than the way I meant it. On the other hand, if one preaches for years and years in a given area and has no results at all, I believe some things should be examined. First, as a preacher, I must start with myself. Am I doing my job well? Am I using the proper style in my preaching? Do I hurt people’s feelings by my demeanor before I can teach them? Not all men have the proper attitude, demeanor and ability to preach the gospel. Not all men can be carpenters, salesmen, teachers or factory workers. Thusly, not all men should be preachers.

On the other hand, it may very well be that the people you are working with in the local church are such as are not liked by those around them. If this be the case, one should attempt to teach those persons first, before looking toward teaching others.

Getting back to the “style” of some preachers, let us examine some things we might do to help people understand. We should remove all barriers that we can in this area. If it is needful for you to “give in” just a little on matters of expediency, such as length, subject matter, or mannerisms on your part, perhaps you should care enough to be concerned for the feelings of others and do your best to accommodate brethren in these areas. However, one should always preach things that are needed and should never compromise on truth. This is not the issue under consideration. What is under consideration however, is your effectiveness with the congregation. If everyone is irritated At you because you are offensive in these matters, you will have little or no effect on matters of importance, even though brethren should be more patient many times.

When was the last time you preached a “first principles” sermon? Are you afraid that the members will think you are shallow? This may be what is needed to convert the children and visitors to the Lord. Simply because you have had a course or two in logic and know what a syllogism is, doesn’t mean your hearers do. Preach things that they can understand. Perhaps the greatest compliment I ever get in my preaching is that I am so “simple.”

Of course, all the blame for lack of conversions must not lie with the preacher. Jesus taught that preaching the gospel is like sowing seed; some will take root and some will not (see Lk. 8). If you find yourself in a place where all you seem to have is wayside hearers, you should seriously consider going elsewhere. Jesus taught his disciples that when they went out to preach, if the people refused to hear their words, they should shake the dust off and leave (Matt. 10:14). Having worked with larger churches that supported men in hard places, I have often heard the remark that brother so and so sure has a hard work. Well, it may be that he is not working at all and should be dropped from support. On the other hand, good faithful working brethren have been refused support because the large church was “full up” on supporting men. Brother, if you are working for a small church and there are no results at all, no one is receptive to your preaching and the future looks dim, consider going elsewhere. Conversely elders should examine the support of men who are having no results and consider using the money to support men who do produce. Brethren, souls are at stake, and this should not be taken lightly. How many salesmen would be kept at work receiving full pay if they never sold any goods? That answer is inherent in the question; none would be kept. Is the preaching of the gospel any less important than selling merchandise? I think not.

Finally, elders who are involved in the decisions to support or not to support men in the field should not treat these men as beggars! Dear elder friend, do you feel that a man is a beggar if he asks for wages in support for the work that he does? If you do, you should study again the fact that a preacher is worthy of his hire and is due wages and not benevolence. Many times a man is working with a small church because he chooses to work in hard places, not because he is unable to do any better. When asking for support men are often told that the church has no money and that we have to examine the budget. Brother, it may be imperative that the preacher have help now. He may not need to wait until a month later for a regular elders’ meeting. These are just some things to think about in that area.

In conclusion, let me say that preachers should convert people to Jesus Christ, and if you are not doing it, please examine your ability, your desire and your location. If any of these is lacking, get a job, make more money and be happy, you can still be saved. But if you are preaching the gospel, be effective, demand the money you deserve, and good elders will see that you get it.

And remember, “even a blind hog gets an acorn once in a while.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 23, p. 718
December 7, 1989

By Ben Vick

In 1849 the American Christian Missionary Society (ACMS) was established. A constitution was written, setting forth the organization, objectives, and purposes of the society. Its objectives and purposes are clearly set forth in the preamble of its constitution. It reads:

That the world may the more fully come to know Christ, the Son of God; that all men everywhere may increasingly appropriate for themselves His way of life; that a world of Christian brotherhood may be realized, and that the unity of God’s people may be achieved, this Society is established.

To this end the Society shall aid in the preaching of the gospel of Christ at home and abroad; shall create and foster a program of Christian education and training to the end that men’s minds may be enlightened concerning the Christian way of life; shall lend encouragement and assistance to local congregations with a view of helping them to become as efficient units of the kingdom of God as possible; . . .

Soon after the news had spread that the ACMS had been established, there was opposition from congregations and preachers. Jacob Creath, Jr., was one of the first, if not the first, among gospel preachers to raise his voice in objection to his unauthorized organization which purposed to rob the church of her work. Others later followed the example of Creath in his objections, stating that the Society had no right to exist. Benjamin Franklin, at the first, lent his influence toward the ACMS but then turned and ferociously attacked its right to exist. Tolbert Fanning, David Lipscomb and others opposed the ACMS as well.

In the fall of 1908 a crucial debate took place between W.W. Otey of Lynn, Indiana, and J.B. Briney of Louisville, Kentucky. The questions discussed were instrumental music and the societies. The second proposition read: “The use of such organizations as the Illinois Christian Missionary Society, the Foreign Christian Missionary Society, etc., is authorized in the New Testament scriptures and acceptable to God.” Briney affirmed; Otey denied.

Though surely most in our brotherhood would give lip service to the position taken by Otey in this debate, yet, many in the Lord’s church could not in consistency deny the above proposition, as did Otey, and continue in their practices, for they are involved in nothing more than missionary societies. Paul wrote, “Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?”

Now, before going any further, let it be understood that I do not have anything personal against the individuals to be named in this article. I am simply naming them for identifying purposes. In fact, I regret to have to call names; but I am not better than Paul; and if he did, then, under similar circumstances, so must I (2 Tim. 1:19-20; 2:17-18; 4:10) Besides, how will we mark and avoid, as the New Testament commands, if we do not know who the errorists are (Rom. 16:17-18)? And if proved to be wrong on any of the organizations to be mentioned, this brother will gladly repent and correct his error.

Another point to be considered is that I am not opposing the orphan home and scriptural sponsoring church cooperation. This writer has defended both in writing and from the polemic platform and would gladly do so again if the opportunity arose. Just to say the orphan home and sponsoring church are like the missionary society does not make them such any more than to call a man a monkey makes him a monkey. A man may swing from trees and eat bananas, but that does not make him a monkey.

The missionary society is sinful and has no right to exist, because it is an organization separate and apart from the church, attempting to do the work of the church. It is wrong because it displaces the work which belongs to the church. It is not the purpose of the missionary society to which we stringently object; but it is its very right to exist that is unscriptural! The orphan homes do the work of a home, not the church. The sponsoring church is simply the church at work; and other congregations are having fellowship in the endeavor. If it can be done in benevolence (2 Cor. 8 and 9; Rom. 15:26-27), then why not in evangelism, since both go hand in hand (Gal. 2:9-10)?

Brethren, we need to get our eyes open! We have missionary societies among us which have no right to exist. Therefore, we are speaking out against them – not because their purposes are not good and commendable, but because they are organizations separate and apart from the church, attempting to do the work of the church.

World Christian Broadcasting Corporations (WCBC) is nothing more than a missionary society. It is separate from the church. It has its own president, Robert E. Scott, and board of directors. Checks are to be made payable to WCBC and are deductible for income tax purposes. In a letter dated April, 1980, the then president of WCBC, B.E. Davis, quoted Matthew 28:19 and mentioned the number of souls in the world today in need of the gospel. He then stated, “The World Christian Broadcasting Corporations has been devised as a way to overcome this obstacle.” Though a number of well-known brethren have endorsed the work, this writer says it is nothing more than a missionary society attached to the church. It seeks church support; but at the same time, it remains autonomous. It even has its own “voice” for raising money called the WCBC News. It is an organization which has no right to exist. Those brethren involved in this work could not oppose the missionary society of the Disciples of Christ and be consistent.

Another missionary society among us is The Center for Church Growth, of Houston, Texas. The president is Joe D. Schubert; and the executive director, according to my latest update, is Tim. E. Matheny. This organization, separate from the church, has its own board of directors which includes a chairman, John R. Bolestawski; vice chairman, Arlen Ashley; and a secretary/treasurer, Dale E. DeCarlo. Some of the board, as of January 27, 1986’s letterhead, include M. Norvel Young and Allen Isbell. “Their purpose?” you ask. It is to help congregations grow. Is it a worthy goal? Yes. But the organization has no right to exist. Will Schubert or Matheny or anyone else connected with this organization defend publicly its right to exist? Peter tells us to grow in grace and in the knowledege of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 3:18). This organization is attempting to do that which the church should do through the preaching of the gospel.

Another missionary society among us is Leadership and Church Growth International, of Florence, Alabama. Its president is Jerry Humphries; the executive director is Jim Denison; and the board of directors is made up of five men, one of whom is Jerry Humphries. What is this organization’s reason for existing? Humphries says, ” . . Ao provide Christian leaders and workers the opportunities to receive the training they need without their having to leave home.” Well, that’s wonderful. But what is the church doing? Cannot these individuals be trained by the simple preaching and/or teaching of God’s word without having an organization separate and apart from the church which is attempting to displace the church? This, too, is a nonprofit organization. Why cannot the church do the same work and let God receive the glory through the church rather than through some humanly devised organization? We are told in the LCG International News that LCG International is in harmony with God’s word. But it will take more than telling us; it must be proved to us (1 Thess. 5:21).

There are a number of “organizations” which are “under” different elderships which have no right to exist, for they are nonprofit organizations (considered by the government to be separate and apart from the church) which are attempting to displace the church. Some of these organizations have selected certain elderships which will just “rubber stamp” whatever the organization desires. If the eldership balks, the organization just finds another “yes” eldership. One of these organizations which comes to mind is the Way of the Cross, of Dallas, Texas. It is “under the oversight” of the elders of the Rockwell Church of Christ in Rockwall, Texas. It has been in existence fifteen years. Checks can be made payable to “Way of the Cross” and are tax deductible. I have been told that this organization, Way of the Cross, is a mission outreach to the highways and hedges of the United States and endeavors to plant churches in areas where none exist. When the Way of the Cross publications comes out, it talks of “our” mission and “our” mission workers.

Why cannot we be simply gospel preachers and members of the Lord’s church and spread the gospel and edify the saints? Why do some brethren think they must have some organization separate from the church through which to do the work of the church? Was Paul a member of some organization such as Leadership and Church Growth International or Way of the Cross? Why cannot brethren be content with the Lord’s organization?

This does not mean it is wrong for brethren to go into private business, selling Bibles and good religious material. The Firm Foundation and Gospel Advocate are businesses. Churches have the right to buy their services, their material, etc.; but the church has no scriptural right to make a donation, or contributions, to such businesses in order to keep them afloat. If so, I am willing to hear the proof.

Brethren everywhere need to rise up and oppose these mini-missionary societies among us.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 23, pp. 720, 723
December 7, 1989

By Richard Boone

Purpose: To show scriptural, sensible reasons why Christians should not marry unbelievers.

Introduction:

1. A problem that faces every Christian when he comes to adult age is that of whom to marry.

2. In our day, when infidels out-number Christians, it is made more difficult because it seems as though there are so few Christians available.

3. I want to give some scriptural, sensible reasons why Christians should not marry unbelievers.

4. This lesson applies to all of us because young people will be making their choices, and parents and other relatives should be providing the proper training along this line.

5. Before I proceed any further, let me make two specific statements:

a. While marrying an unbeliever is not a sin (cf. 1 Cor. 7:12-13), is is unwise.

b. Although it is possible that the unbeliever can be converted (cf. 1 Pet. 3:1-2), statistics do not favor the Christian.

6. With those remarks made, please consider carefully the following reasons why a believer should not marry an unbeliever.

Body:

I. The Scriptures Speak Against Inter-Marrying With Unbelievers.

A. They speak by direct statement (Deut. 7:1-5).

B. They speak by example (cf. Rom. 15:4).

1. Abraham did not want Isaac to marry a Canaanite (Gen. 24:1-4).

2. Esau’s wives were a “grief of mind” to Isaac and Rebekah (Gen. 26:34-35).

3. Rebekah did not want Jacob to marry a Canaanite (Gen. 27:46-28:5).

4. Solomon’s heart was turned away by non-Israelite women (1 Kings 11:1-8).

5. Peter had “a sister, a wife” (1 Cor. 9:5).

C. The Christian will have trouble with his spiritual “father-in-law” (John 8:44)!

II. Problems In A Religiously Mixed Marriage.

A. Marriage partners should have the same goal (Gen. 2:24; Prov. 31:10-12).

1. While marriage between Christians won’t be without problems, the chances of solving their problems are greater because they are working toward the same goal – heaven.

2. In a mixed marriage the Christian is trying to work toward heaven, and the unbeliever is not.

B. Just between the marriage partners, there may be conflicts over:

1. Worship (cf. Jn. 4:23-24):

a. Your attendance may be affected (Heb. 10:25).

b. Your Bible study may be affected (2 Pet. 3:18).

c. Your praying may be hindered (1 Thess. 5:17).

2. Marital responsibilities (1 Cor. 7:1-5; Eph. 5:22-23; 1 Tim. 5:8,14; etc.).

3. Morality (Eph. 4:25ff; Col. 3:5-17).

C. When children are born, there may be trouble over:

1. Religious upbringing (cf. Deut. 6:4-6; Eph. 6:4).

2. Discipline (Prov. 13:24; 22:6; Heb. 12:5-11).

D. As this only scratches the surface, there are many other problems that can exist in a marriage between a Christian and one who is not a Christian.

1. The Scriptures warn us about inter-marrying with infidels.

2. We see some of the problems that can exist in a religiously mixed marriage.

3. Let us make it our aim to marry faithful Christians and teach young adults to do the same!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 23, p. 719
December 7, 1989

By Larry Ray Hafley

Elsewhere in this issue, see Ben Vick, Jr.’s article, “We Are Going to Have to Defend the Truth Among Our Own Brethren (II)”.

Brother Vick’s central point sticks the institutional position in its vital areas. Brother Vick’s argument pricks the bubble of societies which purpose to “rob the church of her work.” He is to be commended for his expressed attitude and his manifest courage in attacking liberal bastions. However, do not expect that his article will be met with a similar reasoned response from his “own brethren.” Do not think that his “own brethren” will summarily dismantle their “unauthorized” organizations. They will not. Brother Vick had better prepare for stone-cold silence from some, emotional epithets from others and for malicious misrepresentation.

This review will not seek to take a negative, repelling tact, designed to further alienate and isolate brother Vick. Rather, it shall strive to: (1) Help our brother to see his inconsistency; (2) Assist him in understanding that the principles and pattern of truth which he advocates he also violates. To do this will require direct, pointed argument, such as brother Vick himself employs against his “own brethren.”

Remember, too, that brother Vick’s institutional concepts are, at least in part, responsible for the societies which he opposes. It is impossible to have “a little” liberalism, for a little liberalism liberalizes the whole lump. Brother Vick does not accept this. He does not perceive it, conceive it or believe it, but it is true nonetheless. In the 1950s, brethren of brother Vick’s persuasion were nearly unanimous in the position for which he contends, but a gradual leavening has occurred in the intervening years. The institutional leaven has affected a lump, infected a generation and effected an apostasy. The lump is now a mountain, a towering precipice of crystallized societies of every stripe, scope and size. Brother Vick’s leaven helped make it all possible. Compare the corollary history of the nineteenth century digression.

WCBC and Herald of Truth

World Christian Broadcasting Corporation (WCBC) is the first missionary society that comes under fire from brother Ben. See his comments. Ben, if WCBC was under an eldership, after the model of Herald of Truth, would it be scriptural? If I could show that Herald of Truth has its own directors, that checks can be made payable to Herald of Truth and are deductible for income tax purposes, would you say that Herald of Truth is an unscriptural missionary society? Further, suppose I could show that Herald of Truth has “its own ‘voice’ for raising money.” Ben, would you oppose it, then?

Would WCBC, “Way of the Cross” and “a number of ‘organizations’ which are ‘under’ different elderships” be scriptural if they were truly controlled by sponsoring churches?

Brother Vick says, “The sponsoring church is simply the church at work; and other congregations are having fellowship in the endeavor.” Which “church,” brother Vick, is “at work”? Is it the “sponsoring church?” Are the “other congregations” “at work,” too, or are they simply “having fellowship in the endeavor?” If it is the work of all the participating churches, who or what determines who shall have “the oversight thereof?” If it is the work of all the churches, the sponsoring church is overseeing at least a part of the work of all the other churches. If it is not the work of the contributing churches which “are having fellowship in the endeavor, ” why do they participate at all? Surely, it will not surprise brother Vick to learn that nineteenth century advocates of the missionary society argued that “the missionary society is simply the church at work and congregations are having fellowship in the endeavor.”

“If It Can Be Done In Benevolence”

Brother Vick asks, “If it can be done in benevolence (2 Cor. 8 and 9; Rom. 15:26-27), then why not in evangelism, since both go hand in hand (Gal. 2:9-10)?” What brother Vick does not recognize is that what was “done in benevolence” is not what he is doing “in evangelism.”

Even brother Vick does not believe his own rule which asks, “If it can be done in benevolence (2 Cor. 8 and 9; Rom. 15:26-27), then why not in evangelism, since both go hand in hand (Gal. 2:9-10)?” Though they “go hand in hand , ” he does not believe that what “can be done in benevolence” may also be done “in evangelism,” for he believes an organization which is “separate and apart from the church” can be funded by churches “in benevolence,” but that societies “separate and apart from the church” have no right to exist” “in evangelism.” So, according to brother Vick, what goes “hand in hand” cannot always hold hands.

Brother Vick does not believe that the benevolence of 2 Corinthians 8 & 9 was limited to the “poor saints.” Could the church, therefore, send money to a Catholic “orphan home,” since, according to brother Ben, “orphan homes do the work of a home, not the church”? Using elements of his own rule, we inquire, if it can be done in benevolence among poor saints (i.e., churches contributing to societies operated by brethren), then why not in benevolence among Catholics (i.e., churches contributing to societies operated by Catholics), “since both go hand in hand?”

Man, Monkeys and Societies

Brother Vick anticipates the parallel of benevolent societies and missionary societies with his man-monkey comparison. If the “errorists” brother Bick assails (Joe D. Schubert, M. Norvell Young, Tim E. Matheny, Jerry Humphries, Allen Isbell, etc.) want an easy answer to brother Vick, they may simply feed him from his own spoon. Vick says the organizations he cites and indicts are “nothing more than missionary societies.” If I were the above named “errorists,” I would reply, “Just to say our works are like the missionary society does not make them such any more than to call a man a monkey makes him a monkey. A man may swing from trees and eat bananas, but that does not make him a monkey.” It is likely that Ben would not consider that much of a response. Neither do we.

A man and a monkey are alike in that they may swing from trees and eat bananas. True, that comparison neither makes a monkey a man, nor a man a monkey. No one says it does. However, they -are still similar in those respects. Likewise, comparing a benevolent society (“orphan home”) and a missionary society does not make a benevolent society a missionary society nor a missionary society a benevolent society. Again, no one says it does. However, they are still similar in those aspects. No one argues that a man is a monkey because he eats bananas and swings from a tree. No one argues that a benevolent society is a missionary society, but the parallels still exist. Both are human organizations. Both seek to do the work God assigned to the church. Both are unauthorized by the Scriptures.

Churches are authorized to “relieve” certain needy ones (1 Tim. 5:16). Churches are authorized to preach the gospel (1 Thess. 1:8). In evangelism, the church is not a means or method of preaching the gospel. It is an organization, created by God, that must use means or methods to preach the gospel. It is an organization, created by men, that must use means or methods to preach the gospel. In benevolence, the church is not a means or method of relieving the needy. It is an organization, created by God, that must use means or methods of relieving the needy. A benevolent society is not a means or method of relieving the needy. It is an organization, created by men, that must use means or methods to relieve the needy.

To paraphrase brother Vick, “Why cannot we be simply gospel preachers and members of the Lord’s church and spread the gospel, relieve the needy and edify the saints? Why do some brethren (like brother Vick) think they must have some organization separate from the church through which to do the work of the church? Was Paul a member of some organization such as Schultz-Lewis, Childhaven and Herald Of Truth or World Radio? Why cannot brethren be content with the Lord’s organization?” Why, indeed?

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 23, pp. 721, 722
December 7, 1989