Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy. But when I was there they were not straight-forward about the truth of the Gospel, I said to CEPHAS IN THE PRESENCE OF ALL, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Peter’s apostasy was a weakness of the flesh. When the Jews from Jerusalem came to Antioch, he was afraid (2:12) of what their reaction might be when they saw him eating with Gentiles in violation of the law of Moses. Consequently, he withdrew from them and stood aloof. The rest of the Jews in the congregation at Antioch followed his lead, including Barnabas, Paul’s devoted companion.

Many of my brethren are telling me that sins which come as a result of weakness of the flesh are automatically covered by God’s grace. They write that the perfect obedience of Christ is imputed to the believer so that sins pertaining to weaknesses of the flesh are automatically forgiven by God. Yet, Paul said, “he stood condemned” (2:11). Now, who am I to believe, my brethren who ,say that the perfect obedience of Christ is imputed to the believer to cover such sins which come as a weakness of the flesh, or the apostle Paul who said that Peter was condemned? I choose Paul, what about you?

We observe also Paul’s method of handling this disagreement. Instead of just “lovingly overlooking these differences,” Paul withstood Peter, as the ringleader of the apostasy, to his face. He publicly rebuked him-in the presence of all. Who can believe that Peter’s apostasy was of such a nature that he was denying the seven facts of the gospel or the one act that brought one into fellowship with God. If the gospel-doctrine distinction were true, this apostasy was a doctrinal apostasy. Yet, Paul could not extend fellowship to the man who was apostatizing; instead, he publicly rebuked him. I would that some of my “grace-unity” brethren would take a lesson from this and spend a little of their time rebuking to the face in the presence of all those brethren who are preaching that instrumental music in worship violates no scriptural principles, that sponsoring church organization is not organizational apostasy, that sending funds from the church treasury to support benevolent homes and colleges is not a violation of the scriptures, and that church involvement in recreation is not a violation of the mission of the church. Instead, they mingle with those who pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ without ever rebuking them of their sins.

Gal. 4:11

I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.

This passage appears in the context of the Galatians observing days, months and years. By reverting to the observance of these Jewish feast days, the Galatians were recognizing the Mosaical law as binding on them. Consequently, Paul considered their observing of these days as a sign of their belief that the Old Law was still binding on them. To go back to the Old Law and keep its commandments would make Paul’s labor be in vain. Why would his labor be in vain? The reason seems obvious; it would be void of result. He had labored to save the Galatians; if they reverted to observing the Mosaical law, they would be lost and his labor would be worthless, so far as productive fruit was concerned. Hence, this passage is further proof that one could lose his soul through returning to observe the Mosaical law. Doctrinal apostasizes about matters other than the seven facts and the one act are damning.

Gal. 5:2-4

Behold, I Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

This doctrinal apostasy broke one’s relationship with Christ and, consequently, with the disciples of Christ. Those who taught and accepted the doctrine that one had to be circumcised in order to be saved were severed from Christ and fallen from grace; Christ was of no benefit to them. Furthermore, they were morally obligated to obey the entire Mosaical law for the same reason that they felt compelled to obey the ordinance pertaining to circumcision.

Gal. 5:9-10

A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough. I have confidence in you in the Lord, that you will adopt no other view; but the one who is disturbing you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is.

The danger of this doctrine spreading throughout the Lord’s church concerned Paul. He knew that it had to be stopped. Consequently, he expressed the confidence in the Galatians that they would follow his commandments as expressed in this epistle and adopt no other view. Indeed, it is a shame that Paul had not been liberated from the legalism of the Law! Poor soul, he had not yet learned that there are a multitude of views. He did not know that the Lord’s church is divided over thirty-seven thousand different things and that, therefore, we cannot expect everyone to understand the Bible alike. He was naive, so naive that he expected everyone to have the same view of the matter! Pardon my sarcasm, but when I compare what the apostle of inspiration said with what the apostles of the grace-fellowship faction are saying, I get rather upset. These men are denying the gospel which saves us.

Paul again indicated the damning influence , of this heresy which existed among the brethren in the churches of Galatia. He said, “the one who is disturbing you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is.” Like the passage in 1:6-9 and 2:11, this passage indicates that this doctrinal apostasy would damn one’s soul. Even if the gospel-doctrine distinction were true, one would still be obligated to prove that deniers of doctrines revealed in God’s holy word can be received in the fellowship of the saints. Passages such as the one which we are studying certainly would negate the premise. Paul expected everyone to adopt the same view; those who did not would bear his judgment.

Gal. 6:1

Brethren, even if a man is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of gentleness; looking to yourself, lest you too be tempted.

As I read the literature that is circulating among us, I see articles written which imply that the man who sins through ignorance or through the weakness of his flesh will not be held accountable for these sins. To these people, the grace of God is somehow automatically extended to forgive these men, whether through the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account or through some other theological manipulation. Yet, this passage shows that the man who is “overtaken” (AV) in a fault is guilty of sin, separated from God and in need of restoration. “The point of the prolempthe is that Paul has in view a fault into which the brother is betrayed `unaware,’ so that it is not intentionally wrong” (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. TV, p. 14). This sin committed in ignorance was not automatically covered by the grace of God. Though it occurred “unawares,” the man was still guilty before God and in need of restoration. A saved man does not need to be restored. The man who is separated from God is the man in need of restoration. Hence, this passage shows that those who are unintentionally guilty of transgressing God’s holy commandment stand guilty before God and in need of salvation.

Conclusion

Those among us who are willing to extend the right hand of fellowship to false brethren among us, need to learn the lessons pertaining to fellowship found in the book of Galatians. Apparently, those who extend the right hand of fellowship to those who are using instrumental music in worship, supporting from the church treasury missionary societies, distorting the government of the local church through the sponsoring church arrangement, perverting the mission of the church through involvement in church support of recreation, education, and benevolence of non-Christians, etc. do not view these men as false teachers. If one reads their writing, he will soon see that this is the case. They engage in no exposure of these sins; rather, the only sin that they seem interested in exposing is the “sin” of exposing false teachers!

The situation in these papers resembles to a greater degree than I like to admit what I see going on in America. In America, Anita Bryant is castigated for condemning the sinful homosexual. In the church, the man who exposes these false teachers for what they are is the can condemned. A man can call for church involvement in any activity he may desire with impunity in the eyes of the majority of the brethren, but let him expose one of these false brethren who are involving the church in sinful activities, and he becomes a “troublemaker.”

My brethren, we need to go back to the Bible to let it be our guide in matters pertaining to whom we will fellowship and how much false doctrine can be tolerated. When we decide to conform ourselves to the Scriptures, we will not be arguing among ourselves over whether or not those who pervert the work and worship of the church can remain in the fellowship of the saints.

Truth Magazine XXII: 26, pp. 419-421
June 29, 1978

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

“1. In an older congregation where there are no elders, does the business meeting replace the eldership? 2. If the business meeting replaces the eldership, can it make decisions without consulting the located preacher, just like the eldership? 3. In an older established congregation where there are no elders, does the located evangelist have equal, partial or no voice with all other members in the business meetings?”

Reply:

I do not know the events that have precipitated these queries. The answers which follow are not to be taken and applied to a local situation where conditions and factors may exist that are unknown or unrelated.

Answer to Question One: The response to this question depends in part on the function of the “business meeting” and the “eldership.” Elders are to “watch for . . . souls” (Heb. 13:17). They are to shepherd, to feed the flock (church) of God. This is done by being examples to the flock (1 Pet. 5:2,3). Elders, as superintendents or overseers, are to guard all the flock (Acts 20:28). This they do by teaching. Elders are concerned with the physical and spiritual needs of the members (Acts 11:30; Jas. 5:13-15). These duties are assigned to elders by the Lord. Shall we presume to assume these works may be done by “the business meeting?” If so, by whose wisdom?

A business meeting is scriptural and expedient. It need not cease when elders are ordained. One might ask, “When elders are appointed, do they take the place of the business meeting?”

The age of the congregation is of no consequence in this regard. Whether it be young, middle-aged, or old, “the business meeting” cannot properly replace “the eldership.” This question would not be entertained if brethren had a scriptural concept of the work of a bishop. Because elders have been transformed into general building security and maintenance men, check signers and approvers, and gospel meeting schedulers, it is accepted that in the absence of such august men the business meeting is a substitute. And with a carnal view of the eldership, a business meeting is indeed a fine replacement for it, if not an improvement. If there was not so much woeful ignorance and error concerning the work of elders, the business meeting would not be considered in the same class. That such a question can be asked is a reflection upon Christians and elders.

Answer to Question Two: This question is based upon a “yes” answer to the first, so we shall not directly respond. Actually, the heart of this question is couched in the one that follows. However, a comment may be in order with respect to elders making decisions without consulting the local preacher. They may do this with all propriety, but under ideal working conditions, they would probably not need to do so very often. Elders should not be the secret service, the covert operations organization of the church. Their leadership should be based on mutual love, respect, and knowledge of the church. This bond of peace will not find them making many decisions that are unknown or unexpected by the flock they tend. Elders should be working closely with a preacher due to the common goal of their respective labors (Titus 1:5-2:15). It would certainly be unwise for an evangelist and the elders to be without acquaintance and communication in their tasks. True, a preacher is not an elder. Elders may make decisions without consulting him, but in a harmonious and effective relationship, the occasions are rare.

Answer to Question Three: Members who have worshiped for years in one place often fancy themselves as the real church while the preacher is a “new” face who is to be tolerated because he is essential and until he goes on his way. He is always an outsider, never one of “us.” For this reason, those who have “for years” served as unofficial “leaders” of the church regard the preacher’s presence in a business meeting as an intrusion. His suggestions, especially if they are not in agreement with the powers that be, are threats.

On the other hand, a preacher who moves into a new area must be aware of his limitations. He is a foreigner to some extent, and he should proceed with caution lest he appear as one who is coming in “to take over this here church.” A preacher may unintentionally put the brethren in “an older established congregation” on the defensive when he sets forth his mere “proposals” that sound like marching “orders” to the brethren. He should go slowly and earn the respect of the brethren as he learns them and the community. If he does not, he will alienate himself. It requires patience and forbearance on the part of the evangelist and the brethren. Perhaps a dose of Ephesians 4:1-3 is in order-“. . . walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

With brotherly kindness and charity, an evangelist will be accorded the same treatment as any other member. Where there is pride, selfishness, and the spirit of Diotrephes (3 Jn. 9), you may expect to find envy, strife, quarrels, partyism, gossip, slander, evil surmisings, “and such like.” It is an unhappy story that has been told all too frequently. It is a tune whose haunting and depraved melody will not be silenced.

Truth Magazine XXII: 26, p. 418
June 29, 1978

By Jeffery Kingry

Anyone who writes or teaches publicly can expect to be reviewed publicly, and cannot be too sensitive about it. Any public teacher must be “patient” or forbearing of other’s failings to meet the Holy Spirit’s requirements in 1 Tim. 2:22-25. The man of God is to follow righteousness, faith, love, and peace in fellowship with all those who approach God sincerely with a pure heart. He is to decline foolish and ill-informed discussions because God declares that they only lead to more and more quarreling. Rather, the preacher is to be courteous and kind towards all, willing to endure malice and overlook grievances. By his admonitions, the preacher must guide in a gentle way those who oppose him and the truth he teaches in the hope that God may give them a change of heart that will lead them to forsake their error and acknowledge the truth.

The Lord gave all preachers this charge because He knew that we should all some day have to deal with and teach the Dan Waiters’ of this world. Some people, like myself, need the Lord’s admonitions to be gentle, because our first response is not one to be gentle. If, in the course of this article I am as abusive and judgmental as Brother Dan Waiters was in his article Poverty and Modern Attitudes of March 2, 1978, I beg your indulgence and accommodation.

Unfortunately, having just moved to Akron, I do not have a copy of the article he reviewed. Actually, I believe reviews of reviews, ad infinitum a very tiresome business. Most intelligent readers are capable of choosing the good from the bad, the judgmental from the accurate, the chaff from the Word. But, the whole thrust of Brother Waiters’ article was so misplaced as to lead me to wonder if I had been as accurate as I should have been. It seemed to me that Brother Waiters was responding to this nation’s abuse of our government’s welfare program. I did not write on the nation’s welfare system. Frankly, I agree with Brother Waiters more than he may know about the national “dole” and the vast self-serving bureaucracy that maintains it. But that was not in the scope of that article or this one. I do not recall any attempt on my part to justify any sloth, or the support of any man who will not work. I do recall writing an article on “The Christian and Poverty.” The Bible does have a great deal to say, if anyone is interested in reading it, on the Christian’s relationship to the poor.

“I Fight Poverty-I Work For A Living”

The above slogan is a case in point. Our attitude towards the poor about us is indeed a topic proper for consideration, in print and in the pulpit. The attitude expressed in the bumper-sticker quote above denies the causes and reality of poverty. It infers that those who are poor are moral and social failures who just will not work for a living. Or, as Brother Waiters puts it, “Much so-called poverty in America is self-induced. There are people who are slothful and who have no ambition to be otherwise.” I have no doubt that there are such people in this world. I have met a few of them, cared for a few of them, and ultimately quit caring for them because they showed by their fruits that they were that way. But, I did not judge them the first time I saw them in need, that just because they were in need they were slothful and without ambition.

Actually, according to the 1960 census, 80.4 percent of the individuals in America who live on an income of $2,000.00 a year or less work full time. 71 percent of the families who make below $4,500.00 a year also work to sustain themselves full-time (“Current Population Reports,” Bureau of the Census, 1956 series, pp. 60-67). So, these people “work for a living” too, but do not make one. The reasons are varied, but are all linked to race, education, health, age, sex, and experience. They do the best they are able, and still live well below poverty level.

It is not my responsibility to reform the welfare mess in Washington. But, it is my responsibility to teach the truth to Christians as to our attitudes towards poverty. Brother Waiters can launch a “strife of words” about the “Modern Welfare System” if he chooses. I will not discuss it with him in print. But, when his right-wing views, and the fascist terminology which he has picked up somewhere affects his attitudes towards people, to count the poor as “common and unclean,” then he has “walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel” (Gal. 2:9-14).

Who Are The Poor?

Brother Waiters denies that there is any real poverty in America. He then goes on to define poverty as “naked and destitute of food.” Anything more than this is not poverty. One must be down to his last corn pone, as he humorously put it, before he is “poverty stricken.”

Well, Brother Waiters, I have performed stoop labor ‘with the broserros in the bean fields of California for $5.00 a day, used a privy, washed in a zinc tub and in rivers, and supported myself and my family working in a steel mill as a ladle man’s helper (and only those in the steel industry know what kind of work that is). But, I am still unprepared to judge my brother or my neighbor who makes $60 to $70 a week working full time as “slothful and who have no ambition to be otherwise.”

From the data reported to the Bureau of the Census in March, 1964, it can be inferred that one in seven of all families of two or more, and almost half of all persons living alone or with non-relatives had incomes too low in 1963 to eat even a minimal diet that could be expected to provide adequate nutrition and still have enough left over to pay for all other living essentials. Such a judgment was predicated by the government on this standard: That an average family of four can achieve an adequate diet on 70 cents a day per person, and an additional $1.40 for all other items-from housing and medical care to clothing and car fare. For those dependent on a regular paycheck, such a budget could mean, for the family of four, total family earnings of $60.00 a week.

If you increase your daily allotment to 90 cents a day, or $77.00 a week for a family of four, you would add another 8.8 million adults and 6.8 million children to the list. In America there are 50 million people, of whom 25 million are young children, who live “naked and destitute of food” or at least hover around its edge.

What is “destitute of food”? Well, again the government assumes the house maker in poverty is a good manager and has time and the skill to shop wisely. She must prepare nutritious, palatable meals on a budget that for herself, a husband, and two small children-an average family would come to about 70 cents a day per person.

For a meal that all four of them ate together, she could spend on an average only 95 cents, and to stay within her budget she must allow no more than a pound of meat, poultry, or fish altogether, barely enough for one serving for each member of the family, at one of three meals. Eggs could fill out her family fare only to a limited degree because the plan allows less than 2 dozen eggs a week for all uses in cooking and at the table, not even one to a person per day. And any food extras such as milk for the kids at school, coffee for the husband at work, or any eating out, have to come out of the same food money or compete with the limited funds available for rent, clothing, medical care, and all other expenses. Studies indicate that, on the average, family members eating out, away from home spend twice as much as the homemaker would spend for preparing the same meal at home. The 20 to 25 cents allowed for a meal at home in the economy plan would not buy much even in the way of supplementation.

Most of the poor receive no assistance from public programs, and then only temporarily. Others remain poor because they have no resources but the limited payments and supplements provided under existing programs. And public programs to help the poor in the main are geared to serve those who cannot work at all or who are temporarily out of work. The man who works for a living, but is not making one, will normally find no avenue of aid.

When Should The Church Help?

Brother Walters recommends that no brother be helped benevolently until the brother has sold all his possessions, converted them to food and clothing, and then runs out of those. He cites Mexico and the Philippines as places that know “true poverty.” Indeed they do. Malnutrition, ignorance, and lack of hygiene or medical care (all products of poverty) lower the life expectancy in those areas to fifty, child mortality before five to one in three, and a quality of living to the survival level. I thank my God in heaven that He does not deal with me in the same way that Brother Walters recommends. The Lord’s view of need does not require that men be humiliated, ground down, broken, and bereft before he reaches out to help. “For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him” (Psa. 12:5).

Brother Walters sniffs at the “cliches of modern neomarxist economists and social reformers.” He objects to the use of such expressions as “culture of poverty,” “wealth distribution,” and “eliminating the causes of poverty.” I have not read any of these new marxist socialists that Brother Walters obviously is so well acquainted with. He seemingly has read more on the subject than I have. But, if those people are using my vocabulary it must be because we are talking about the same thing, or have observed the same conditions.

But, let us make it scriptural. There is such a thing as a culture of poverty-social conditions which continue to promote and prolong poverty, so that once one is poverty stricken it is difficult to break out of that bracket. It is not necessary to prove that in this article. The scriptures refer to it: “The Lord heareth the poor, and despiseth not his (poverty’s) prisoners” (Psa. 69:33). The Lord gave special laws to the Jewish nation to break the back of this “poverty culture” and to give a man a chance to break out of such a “prison.” In Lev. 25:25-43, God required that a man who was poverty stricken not to be required or allowed to sell off all of his possessions in order to meet the necessities of life. He was, instead, to be helped by his brethren. Any loans made to the poor were to be made without interest, and never for food. Food was to be given to those who needed it. All loans were to be forgotten during and after the Jubilee, which came around every fifty years. The poor was not to have his abilities sold as a bond-servant (today we might call it a garnishee). He was to be allowed to work out his debt without interest, and all of his labor was to go to the principal sum. This, along with many other things, was God’s social law to combat developing a people ground down and kept down by poverty.

Wealth distribution? Brother Walters believes the expression smacks of communism. Well, try God’s statement on the subject, and choose your own phrase. “For I mean not that others be eased, and ye be burdened, but by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply to your want: that there be an equality: As it is written, he that had gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no lack” (2 Cor. 8:11-15). As Brother Blackmon once said, “Do not come to me with your complaint. Take it to the Lord.”

And Brother Walters “meets himself coming back” if he objects to eliminating the cause of poverty. The cause of poverty is varied, but the basis of it is that people cannot work and make a decent living, and as Christians we can do what we can individually to correct this.

The Collection Is Not Primarily For Benevolence

As for Brother Walter’s contention above, I can only reply, “Who says?” I would petition Brother Walters to show all those who had to suffer through his article one passage of scripture that speaks of a church collection for any purpose other than benevolence for needy saints. We infer (and rightfully so) that preachers may be paid from the church treasury, class materials purchased, elders supported, buildings erected, T.V., radio, and print evangelism paid for, but we are commanded in every instance to lay by in store collectively for the needs of the saints (1 Cor. 16:1-2). “The poor we have with us always” and their needs are continual-not `special’ as Brother Walters teaches.

Jesus taught that the quality of those who would enter into the Kingdom of God would have to be “. . . give to him that asketh thee, and him that would borrow from thee turn not away” (Matt. 5:42). The criteria for judgment, salvation or damnation, is whether we have fed the hungry, given water to those who thirst, lodged strangers, clothed the shabby, helped the sick, visited those in prison (Matt. 25:35). The saints first chose servants in the church to “serve tables” (Acts 6:1-4). The only transfer of funds we read about in the Bible between churches, and the only collection made is for benevolence (Acts 11:29, 30; Rom. 15:25-27; 1 Cor. 16:lff; 2 Cor. 8:115; 9:1-15). Paul told the brethren that the only thing the Jerusalem apostles ever asked of him in his ministry to the Gentiles would be “That we should remember the poor, the same which I was also forward to do” (Gal. 2:10). Paul’s teaching on giving was directed towards “supplying the wants of the saints” (2 Cor. 9:12).

Brother Walters says the only “mission of the church is spiritual-to save souls.” He attempts to sever benevolence to saints from the `spiritual’ work of the church. What? Have ye not read, “Whiles by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ . . . and by their prayer for you, which long after you for the exceeding grace of God in you”(2 Cor. 9:13, 14).

My patience is gone. Exhausted by the mountain of ignorance and prejudice portrayed by Dan Walters’ writing. I could not begin to answer all of it. I will not attempt flattery in my estimation of Brother Walters’ attitude. Dan, you are not only wrong, you need to repent of your hardness of heart and public foolishness. “Ye have despised the poor . . . Are ye not then partial in yourself, and are become judges of evil thoughts? . . . If any man among you seem to be religious and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widow in their affliction…” (Jas. 2:6, 4; 1:26, 27).

Truth Magazine XXII: 25, pp. 410-412
June 22, 1978

By Wallace H. Little

Lately, I have read more than several articles where one charges a brother in Christ with “misrepresentation.” A check of several dictionaries shows me that generally, the word may either mean an accidental erroneous representing of the position of another, or a deliberate falsification of it. It takes little reading to conclude some writers are using it from that latter definition. There are a few things I would like to consider.

First, such usage constitutes a charge of lying. And like all other charges of sin, it is to be established in the mouths of two or three witnesses (2 Cor 13:1, others). I suggest it is not enough for me to conclude you have deliberately falsified my position simply because you reported it wrongly. I must know (have proof) before I can make such a charge. And since it is a matter of sin, then, God demands it be corrected. But I had better be sure. Note also, please, a slippery handling of the word “misrepresentation” and a falling back on one dictionary definition when I actually had the other in mind is no escape route. God is not mocked (Gal. 6:7), and my soul is in jeopardy by such.

Second, lacking proof my brother wilfully falsified my, position, love alone ought to keep me from even thinking it seriously. Note 1 Cor 13:5, “. . . love thinketh no evil.” Love demands I put the best, not the worst connotation on your words and conduct.

Third, we have a God-given pattern for handling personal differences; and it is distressing to see considerable evidence this is often observed more in being overlooked than followed. Check carefully the Lord’s teaching in Mt. 5′.23, 24 and Mt. 18:15-17.

My brother may indeed misrepresent me in his writing, doing it wilfully. But before I broadcast this charge, I need to do three things. One, put the best understanding of his writing I am able; two, insure that when I charge him (being backed by two or three reliable witnesses) I do so first privately; three, I have it Bible does have a great deal to say, if anyone is interested in my heart to “gain my brother.” in.reading it, on the Christian’s relationship to the poor.

Does this sound as if God is interested in our motives?

Truth Magazine XXII: 25, pp. 409-410
June 22, 1978