Truth Magazine

By Lewis Willis

When we in the Lord’s Church attempt to teach our friends the truth about the worship of the Church, most of them find that truth to be unbelievable. They cannot imagine that they can’t worship like the Jews worshiped. They run to David and his instruments of music which he used in his worship and they try to justify their instruments with his. All too frequently, and sadly, it is impossible to get people to see the truth about worship. The design of this article is to examine why a change in worship should seem so strange.

The Bible shows us three great periods or dispensations of time: Patriarchal, Jewish or Mosaic, and Christian. Just as there is a requirement for worship by those of us living in the Christian Age, those people who lived in the Patriarchal and Jewish ages also had a requirement for worship. And, there were differences in the worship God required of the people who lived in each age. It is my view that we will never understand the worship of the New Testament Church until we acknowledge this fact.

During the Patriarchal Age, religion was confined to the family. God conducted religious “business” through the heads of those families like Adam, Noah, Abraham, etc. God required that animal sacrifices be offered on altars built by these families. Thus, we read of Abel offering his sacrifice to God (Gen. 4:4). After the flood, Noah built an altar and offered animal sacrifices (Gen. 8:20). Lest his children fail to sacrifice as they should, Job continually offered sacrifices for them (Job 1:5). The practice of sacrifices being offered by the heads of the patriarchs of those great families was acceptable with God.

However, the practice of the Patriarchs, which was acceptable with God, would have condemned a Jew. Why? Because God changed the law of animal sacrifices. In the Jewish Age God did not permit heads of families to offer their own sacrifices. He assigned this responsibility to Moses’ brother Aaron and to the men of the tribe of Levi (Exod. 28:1; Num. 18:1-7; 25:11-13). They were the only ones who could offer sacrifices which God would accept. On one occasion King Saul offered a sacrifice which he was not authorized to offer and he was reproved by Samuel, the prophet (1 Sam. 13:8-14). If Saul had been like the denominationalist of our day, he would argue: “If Noah and Abraham could offer animal sacrifices, I feel it is alright if I do the same. ” Obviously, there is a difference with God. He gave Noah and Abraham authority to offer sacrifices. He did not give that authority to Saul. I believe anyone wanting to see, can see that the change in the Law governing these people also changed what was acceptable with God. Because it was right under the Patriarchy did not make it right for the Jews. Because it was worship to God, he had the right to change it if he pleased. And, that is exactly what he did!

It is essential that we understand that we do not live in the Patriarchal or the Jewish Age. We live in the Christian Age. And, guess what? God has changed the worship again! That’s right, God changed the worship which now is acceptable with him. In fact, we can no longer offer animal sacrifices like the people used to offer. Such were acceptable for them, but not for us. We are to offer up sacrifices alright, only we offer our “bodies” as “living sacrifices” (Rom. 12:1). We are taught to offer “the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name” (Heb. 13:15). Suppose I said, “I don’t want to do it that way. I like it better and get more out of it the other way. I want to continue to offer animal sacrifices.” Never mind that the blood of animals could not perfect men (Heb. 10:1-4). You would be trying to correct my error, wouldn’t you?

Not only did God change the kind of sacrifices, he even changed who could offer them. Under the Patriarchy, the head of the family offered the sacrifice. Under the Jewish economy, the Levitical priesthood offered the sacrifices. But, not any more! Now, we who live in the Christian Age are authorized to offer our own sacrifices – all of us! Christians (each of us) are “an holy priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:5). We are called “a royal priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:9). We are the royal priesthood because God, through Christ, has made us “kings and priests” (Rev. 1:6; 5:10). The distinction between clergy and laity and arrogance of Catholicism’s priesthood ignores this fundamental Bible truth. But, they argue, “They had a priesthood in the Old Testament, why can’t we have one now?” Why? Because God authorized them to have a special priesthood then but he does not authorize us to have one now. We must learn this lesson.

So I ask, “Why does it seem so strange that we cannot worship like God’s people used to worship?” Why can’t we have Dad build an altar and offer animal sacrifices? Or, why can’t we have a special priesthood to handle our sacrifices? Abraham and David had these things, didn’t they? Yes, and David had his instruments of music. But, God changed the law – the rules – and what they did is no longer acceptable with him. That is all we need to know to learn the truth about worship today. We have a new and better covenant. We now offer living, spiritual sacrifices, which includes our worship in which God specified that we “sing and make melody in (our) heart” (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Patriarchal or Jewish worship will not be accepted – only the worship appointed for us in this Christian Age. Will you allow yourself to learn this lesson?

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 23, pp. 705, 728
December 7, 1989

By Steve Moseley

“Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well” (1 Tim. 3:11-12). A wife and children are prerequisites for appointment to the office of deacon. The need for this requirement was explained under the qualifications of bishops in verse 5, “For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?”

We have an example of part of the work of deacons in Acts 6. Some believe that those appointed in Acts 6:1-7 were not true deacons. Their conclusion is based on the assumption that the office of deacon had not yet been established. Others assume that the office of deacon did exist but there were no deacons assigned with the duties of caring for the Grecian widows. They conclude that the seven men appointed in Acts 6 represented the first deacons assigned to care for the foreigners (McClintock & Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, and Ecclesiastical Literature, p. 705). One does not have to make any assumptions about the work these men were given. They ministered by making sure that the needs of the Grecian widows were not neglected. Who could be better suited for such service than men who had proven their ability by providing well for their own families?

Marriage is a divine institution, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). Husbands and wives are to become one (Matt. 19:6). There is no closer relationship that can exist between a man and a woman. The experiences of one will have an effect on the other, because to a degree all experiences are joint experiences. They share one another’s joys, sorrows and responsibilities. A man can not take on the major task of serving as a deacon without the support and encouragement of his wife. Therefore, we should not be surprised to find some qualifications for the wife and family listed among those of the man who might serve as a deacon.

The Qualifications of the Deacon’s Wife

First, she must be a Christian. This is understood from the statement, “faithful in all things.” Would God give qualification for service in his kingdom to someone not in his kingdom? How could he expect an unbeliever to accept and maintain them? He would not! By the very fact that he has stated qualifications that must be met by the deacon’s wife, we must conclude that she must first be a child of God. She could not understand her husband’s sacrifice and service, if she were not a faithful Christian. How else could she be expected to encourage him; contribute the sympathy; and make the sacrifices that will be required of her? God has not called to “special service” those who have never answered the gospel call to service!

The mates that people choose say something about their Christian maturity. What does it say about a Christian who takes as his lifelong companion one who is not a Christian? At best it demonstrates poor judgment and at worst that he is not “grave,” but lack genuineness in his faith. It says that he doesn’t fully understand the relationship of a man and a wife and perhaps not even the relationship of Christ and the church (Eph. 5:22-33).

Second, she must be “grave” (1 Tim. 3:11). This is the same positive qualification that deacons must possess (1 Tim. 3:8). She has a, sense of conduct worthy of respect and honor. It’s seen in a character that is noble and dignified. The genuineness and stability of her faith generates this respect.

Third, she must not be “slanderous. ” This is from the Greek word diabolos. This verse (1 Tim. 3:11) is the only place it is translated “slanderer” in the KJV. It is translated ” false accuser” twice and “devil” thirty-five times. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says, “. . . is used as a noun, translated ‘slanderers’ in 1 Tim. 3:11, where the reference is to those who are given to finding fault with the demeanour and conduct of others, and spreading their innuendos and criticisms in the church.” A deacon’s wife should not be a ” she-devil, ” one who goes about making false accusations.

Most congregations have enough real problems and shortcomings to keep the elders and deacons busy. A deacon doesn’t need added discouragement from his wife. Such a “she-devil” is like Job’s wife who encouraged him to “curse God, and die” (Job 2:9). The real problems of the church she blows out of proportion. If there aren’t enough problems she’ll fabricate some. This type wife would soon drain the zeal and energy of a good man.

Fourth, she must be “sober. ” To limit the meaning to simply the abstinence from alcohol would be a mistake. In Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich’s Greek-English Lexicon (2nd ed.), it defines naphalos as, “. . temperate in the use of alcoholic beverages, sober, clear-headed, self-controlled.” It describes a person with a well balanced life. She abstains from those things that would be harmful and uses the things that are good in moderation. She is not extravagant or excessive in dress or speech. Her life shows common sense and she practices self-restraint with the strength that comes from a clear mind.

The Qualifications of Deacons’ Children

The Scriptures tell us that elders are to have “children in subjection with all gravity” (1 Tim. 3:4) and “having faithful children not accused or riot or unruly” (Tit. 1:6). Yet of the deacons we are told only that they should be men, “ruling their children and their own houses well.” This is a positive command directed toward the deacons and not toward their children. Unlike the children of elders there are no qualifications for the deacon’s children. Because of this a young man with very small children might qualify as a deacon. However, as his children grow, a deacon may have to use his physical strength and will have to use his spiritual strength to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4). In so doing he will continue to prove himself one who rules his house well.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 22, pp. 681, 687
November 16, 1989

By Harry E. Osborne

In the last couple of weeks, I have received several notices of “Christian concerts” in the area. Of course, this kind of thing is very common in a denominational world caught up in the “social gospel” methods of getting attention and members. However, the notices of these concerts are, in my estimation, especially worthy of some comment. Some thought needs to be given to the statements made and ideas left by some of these things.

One of these notices came in with a full color brochure picturing six guys, I think, called “Mylon and Broken Heart.” All of them had hair past their shoulders (cf. 1 Cor. 11:14). The concert is advertised as an “action packed event” with an “explosive light show” and “58,000 watts of state of the art digital sound reinforcement by Peavey.” That ought to be enough for anyone to hear them even should a nuclear war break out during the concert. They must be a rock group – nobody else can stand that much noise.

All of this is necessary, I am sure, to reach their stated goal. They say, “This is more than a concert – it’s a ministry opportunity!” In the brochure, one member of the group is quoted as saying, “Our desire is to share the Lord with you and your friends.” He signs it, “Love, Mylon.” They say those coming to the concert will “hear the Gospel.” By the way, if you would like to “hear the Gospel,” these fellows will “share” it with you for $9.50, $10.50, or $11.50 depending on how close you want to be while you “hear the Gospel.”

As I read this flyer, several questions came to my mind:

(1) Does the Gospel of the crucified Christ need the hype of exploding lights to make it “action packed” enough for this society? If exploding lights are necessary to attract someone, their interest will be in exploding lights, not the Gospel. They will leave with the lights. Jesus said the same thing in principle to those seeking physical food rather than his message during his ministry (Jn. 6:26-45). If the fact that Jesus died on the cross so that they could be free from the penalty of sin and have a hope of heaven does not interest them, how are exploding lights going to make them change their minds?

(2) Just how do these guys plan to “share” the Gospel with their audience? Jesus instructed his apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature (Mk. 16:15). That task was achieved when the apostles revealed the message in words chosen by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:10-13). Paul says he was appointed “a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher” of that Gospel (2 Tim. 1:8-11). What is the point? The Gospel is a message which must be communicated in words. You don’t convey the message of that Gospel by strumming a C-chord, bashing the drums, and strutting across the stage. It is that message in words that can bring men to be purified and born again (1 Pet. 1:22-25).

(3) Can you imagine Jesus charging admission? The commercialism of selling seats so that people can “hear the Gospel” is totally foreign to the examples of Jesus and his apostles recorded in the Bible. It smacks of the commercial practices of the Catholic church in medieval times as they sold indulgences. How serious can the sinner take one who offers salvation only after receipt of admission amount? The world has seen “business world religion” in charlatans like Jim and Tammy Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Oral Roberts, and others who will save you for a buck. How seriously are they taken by the undeluded?

Another announcement bears the picture of a “Christian hard-rock” group called Stryper. Maybe I should say it bares the picture of this group because that is what one of the four is from the waist up (except for his suspenders). They look like Alice Cooper, KISS, or the hairy monster from your most horrible nightmare. Charles Darwin may be right about these guys. Their announcement makes no promise of teaching one the Gospel, but they do promise to charge $16.75 for each ticket. I doubt seriously if anyone will hear these fellows talking about the Bible teaching on modest apparel.

A third notice came from the First Baptist Church here in Alvin. Their building and Family Life Center, a kind of church playground for all ages, sets just around the corner from our building. They have invited all in the area to a “Christian concert” featuring a saxophonist. His list of concerts is given and I am impressed. This fellow has perform, ed before the Ambassador of Poland, the President of Liberia, and the King and Queen of the Zoolu tribe. The New York Times is quoted as saying this saxophonist’s New York concert was “almost exhaustingly cathartic.” In fact, this notice says he is acclaimed by critics as the “World’s Greatest Gospel Saxophonist.”

Now this is where I have a bit of trouble with terms. What exactly is a “Gospel Saxophonist”? If the Gospel is Christ’s message revealed in words chosen by the Spirit (as we have previously shown), how can anyone teach the Gospel by means of a saxophone? Don’t get me wrong, I love the sound of a saxophone. It is a beautiful instrument and the one who can play it well has my highest regard. But how do those notes cause one to hear the verbal message of Jesus necessary to produce faith (Rom. 10:17)? I must confess total ignorance as to how a saxophone can do this.

The notice also says that this saxophonist has performed C don virtually every major Christian television broadcast in America” where he “played for Jesus.” Included in that list was one show, The Church of God in Christ Telecast, that teaches there is only one person in the Godhead. In other words, this program denies the Jesus our “Gospel Saxophonist” is supposed to play for. I certainly hope his saxophone spoke clearly there. He also played on “Trinity Broadcasting” which maintains that there are three persons in the Godhead. I wonder what differences there were in the two performances.

The claim is repeatedly made that this saxophonist “plays for Jesus.” He is said to have had asthma so bad he could hardly breathe as a young man. He says that he asked Jesus to heal him of his asthma. When did this happen? As he was walking home after playing his saxophone at a Kansas City night spot. He then relates the answer to his prayer as follows: “A few days later I was upstairs in our home sitting alone and thinking extemporaneously. (One wonders how you could think non-extemporaneously – H.O.) I remember blowing a song on my horn for Jesus and then taking one deep breath, and everything was gone! Gone! Gone out of my lungs! Jesus had touched me and now I blow for Him!”

Just think, this can start a whole series for our Baptist friends. They can get a “Gospel Cook” who can “fry for Jesus.” Following that can be the “Gospel Glider” who will “fly for Jesus.” Then there can be the “Gospel Barber” who can “clip for Jesus.” Wouldn’t that be sheerly divine? They might even conclude the series with the woman in the Unitarian church who calls herself the “Gospel Stripper” and have a “strip for Jesus.” Lest anyone take me seriously, let me hasten to add that I do not recommend such.

The letter sent with this notice concludes by asking local churches to cancel Sunday evening worship services so that all can listen to this saxophonist. Is listening to a saxophone concert more important than worshiping God? Again, I love the saxophone, but should I love it more than worshiping, adoring and learning about my God? God forbid! A social gospel which depends upon entertainment to reach people is not what Jesus or his apostles taught. We must look to the Bible to find what Jesus would have us teach and practice. We need not depend on entertainment, hype, or gimmicks – just the power of his message of truth (Rom. 1:16). Let us never take the first step in the path of social gospelism which leads to such a mess!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 21, p. 660
November 2, 1989

By Mike Willis

The Scriptures authorize and command that the local church provide support for a man who gives his life to the peaching of the gospel. In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul wrote about his liberties in Christ and spoke concerning the support of gospel preachers.

Have we not power to eat and drink? Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working? Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? Who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof.? Or who feedeth a fock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? Say I these things as a man? Or saith not the law the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ. Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? And they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar. Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel (1 Cor. 9:4-14).

This Scripture and others authorize gospel preachers being supported while they preach the gospel.

Thanks For Those Who Have Gone Before

Having read of the sacrifices of preachers in previous generations, I have concluded that my generation of preachers owes a debt of thanks to those brethren who have gone before us who have worked to educate brethren on the need for supporting gospel preachers. The living standard of most preachers has been enhanced by brethren who have tried to live by the “Golden Rule” in supporting preachers: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets” (Matt. 7:12). 1 am thankful for these brethren who have this attitude and for those preachers who, despite criticisms such as “You are just preaching for money,” preached what God said about supporting preachers that my generation of preachers could be so wen supported. I express my appreciation to each of you.

Different Problems For Today

Paul stated that “the fashion of this world passeth away” (1 Cor. 7:31), as he spoke of the constant flux and change which occurs in human affairs. Because what is true with the world is also true regarding preachers’ support, there are some changes occurring about which some brethren may not know as they relate to preachers’ support. I write them, not to complain (for I have no basis for complaint), but to inform those who are in positions to make decisions which affect preachers’ support. Here are some things you need to know:

1. Health insurance is out of control. The costs for medical care have exceeded inflation for several years. The result is that insurance costs are spiraling. In order to inform brethren of what is happening, I am disclosing my personal expenses for health care cost. I purchase my insurance through the Pension Fund of the Christian Church (200 Barrister Bldg., 155 E. Market St., Indianapolis, IN 46204). This is the group coverage provided for preachers in the Christian Church. The organization has been kind enough to allow preachers from the churches of Christ to participate in their group program.

The rate increases for 1990 were recently mailed to me and are as follows:

	Current Monthly Rates	1990 Monthly Rates
Family (1 or more dependents)	$335	$400
Single employee	135	161
Participant over 65	58	69
Couple, both over 65	116	138
Member over 65, dependent under	258	308
Member under 65, dependent over	193	230

The coverage is through Travelers Insurance and is pretty good (not to be compared with the coverage provided by large companies such as General Motors). It does not include dental or eye benefits.

A church which gives a preacher a $25 per week increase in salary has barely kept up with the increase in his insurance costs. If any of our readers thinks that these rates are out of line with the industry, I am sure that the directors of the Pension Fund of the Christian Church, whose only business is administering insurance coverage to their membership, would be delighted to receive what information he has to find less expensive prices for the same coverage.

I would like to recommend that churches consider providing health insurance coverage as a part of the salary provided a gospel preacher. By so doing, the health insurance is treated as a fringe benefit for tax purposes and the preacher is given some protection from the inflationary spiral of health costs. Then when raises are given, an actual increase in spendable income can be seen.

2. Social security costs. Being treated as self-employed, the preacher pays the full costs of social security coverage. Social security taxes for the self-employed for 1988 were 12.3 percent. On an income of $600 per week, $3800 + is paid in for social security taxes. If a church owns the house is which the preacher lives, the house is considered in his income; hence, the social security tax is paid on fair rental value of the house in which the preacher lives. Of course, income taxes must also be paid from the income which the preacher receives. On the illustrated income of $600 per week, $166.11 must be deducted to cover social security and insurance, leaving $433.89 from which to pay income taxes and to live.

I would like to recommend that churches at least pick up the employer’s half of the social security taxes. By so doing, the preacher is brought to the same level as employees in other occupations.

3. Housing costs. The cost for providing a house also has gone up. When the preacher moves, there are several things which happen to his housing costs. A few years ago, I moved during a time when interest rates were excessively high; my interest rate on my house changed from 8 percent to 13.5 percent. Obviously, the same amount of money bought a lot less house. Too, there are real estate fees involved in selling property. In our area, real estate agents charge 7 percent commission. Every time a preacher must move, he pays out 7 percent of the selling price of the house, eating up a portion of the equity he has accumulated in his real estate.

No one should need to be told that houses have increased in value in recent years (although the inflation rate for housing has slowed in recent years). Some brethren who have lived in the same location for 20-25 years may not be aware of what housing costs are. They built their 3-bedroom brick home in the 1960s for $20-30,000 and their payments were around $200 per month. To buy that same house today would more nearly approach $75,000. In our area, a $75,000 home is not above average. The mortgage payment on a $75,000 loan (at 10 percent for 20 years) is $723.77. On top of this must be added taxes and insurance, easily bringing the house payment over $800 per month. Utility costs must be added to this figure. Most of our readers know this from experience, but some who have been settled in one location for an extended period of time may not be aware of what housing costs run.

4. Automobile expenses. Providing transportation also has increased in recent years. The car which could be purchased for $3500 in 1973 now costs $17,000+. The gas which was $35 per gallon is now nearly $1.00 a gallon. Inasmuch as many preachers use their cars extensively in visitation among members, traveling to and from meetings, etc., a car allowance is recognized as a legitimate deduction on income taxes. Brethren need to remember that preachers have to buy cars at the same places they buy them and their car payments are just as great.

5. Other expenses. The normal expenses in a home also are incurred in a preacher’s home. Kids need clothes and shoes; grocery bills, spending money, and school expenses are incurred. Then when the teenagers graduate from high school there are college expenses. Next the costs of providing a wedding comes. Preachers face all of the same expenses as everyone else and have the same desires as other families.

Conclusion

When calculating a fair salary for a preacher, brethren should not manifest a spirit which tries to pay a man the least possible salary which will keep him. Such attitudes generate resentment in the hearts of the preacher, causing some men to quit preaching. Rather, brethren should try to be informed of a preacher’s needs. The statement in James 5 applies to churches, as it does other employers.

Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. Your riches are corrupted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days. Behold, the hire of the laborers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth (5:14).

Woe be to the brethren who withhold a fair salary from its preacher while the church accumulates a large account and the brethren live prosperously!

I recognize that the same problems mentioned above which are faced by preachers also are faced by the rest of the American population and a number of brethren are suffering, not receiving salaries which keep up with the increased expenses. My heart aches for them, just as it does for the preachers. Nevertheless, where churches have the ability to meet the preacher’s need, they should do so.

Knowing that good brethren will rectify poor situations when they become aware of them, this article was written to inform brethren of matters which their own local preacher may be too embarrassed or reluctant to mention. Why not initiate a discussion of this subject in your next business meeting?

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 22, pp. 674, 694-695
November 16, 1989