Truth Magazine

By Dan Walters

Brother Kingry’s article, “The Christian and Poverty” (Truth Magazine, Sept. 15, 1977) seems to rely more on modern liberal sociology than on scripture. Let no one misunderstand: Brother Kingry is a faithful gospel preacher and a skillful writer. I bear him no ill will. But he makes a number of statements that should be examined more closely. He makes use of phrases such as “wealth distribution,” “cultural effects of poverty,” and “eliminating the causes of poverty,” which have become cliches in the vocabulary of the modern neomarxist economists and social reformers. This is merely an indication of where he may have derived some of his information. He thinks those of us who speak of “Welfare Cadillacs,” the misuse of food stamps, and fighting poverty by working have the wrong attitude toward the poor. I believe it is Brother Kingry who does not understand poverty.

To establish the fact that I do not speak from an ivory tower, let me first point out that I have had the personal experience of (1) living on $20.00 per week, (2) using a path instead of a bath, (3) drawing water from a well with a rope, and (4) cooking and heating with a wood stove. Lest anyone think I am like the lady in the $60,000 house that Brother Kingry mentions, let it be known that I at this time rent a house for $100 per month, heat it with wood, and drive nails to make my living. This is not bragging, it is simply establishing my credentials.

The “Welfare Cadillac” is a symbol of undeserved and misused charity. Working Americans rightly resent welfare chiseling which may involve as high as 50 % of those who receive government aid. The misuse of food stamps is the most notorious example of misdirected benevolence. Those who can afford to buy luxury items simply do not need charity. The only right and scriptural way to fight poverty is to work. Paul said, “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat” (2 Thess. 3:10). The great majority of Americans agree that the aged and the infirm, who cannot work and who have no other means of support, should be helped by some branch of government. Even the libertarian purists who disagree say that they should be helped voluntarily by churches, private organizations, and individuals. So no one is against helping this class of persons, and I know of no one who ridicules them. The slogans Brother Kingry refers to are intended to ridicule the irresponsible welfare system, not the poor. Those who are able to work and will not do so deserve condemnation. Of course, we should try to save them. But they must repent in order to be saved.

The chief victims of the modern welfare system are not the taxpayers, but the welfare recipients who are robbed of their dignity and whose children are conditioned to think that the world owes them a living. It is absolutely immoral for the government, the church, or the individual to support an able-bodied person in idleness.

When I needed help in my carpenter business, I used to go to the unemployment office where dozens of people sat around waiting for checks. I go there no longer. None of them would accept real work, even at pay far above the minimum wage. Every day I see jobs that go undone merely because people no longer need the work. They suppose, if they are inclined to work at all, that some factory or store must hire them or else they cannot work. Meanwhile the basements go uncleaned, the weeds uncut, the leaves unraked, the barns unpainted, the windows unwashed because no one is interested in providing a job for himself. There is no motivation because there is so little real poverty in America!

Who are the poor? The widow in the Old Testament who was preparing to bake one last corn pone for herself and her son and then to die was poor! Those who were in Judea during the great famine and did not have enough to eat were poor. One who is “naked and destitute of food” (Jas. 2:15) is poor. One who does not have sufficient food to keep himself alive and in reasonable health, who does not have enough clothes to keep warm, or who does not have access to shelter from the elements is poor.

Those who have televisions, good automobiles, stereos, automatic washers and dryers, and unnecessary items of furniture are not poor. They will be poor when they have sold all these things, converted them into necessities, and still are unable to provide food, shelter, and clothing. How many poor persons does that leave us in America?

There are poor people in the world. Most of them live in countries such as Mexico and the Phillipines. Some of them are our brethren and we should be concerned about them. Why waste tears on Americans who refuse to take advantage of what this country offers? I have read sociology books, too. I have seen the pictures of “poverty” and read the descriptions of “poverty.” Nine times out of ten when you remove the garbage and the filth, give the people a bath and comb their hair, you will have a normal lower middle class family. My point is that much so-called poverty in America is selfinduced. There are people who are slothful and who have no ambition to be otherwise. Who knows whether it is genetic or acquired? It makes no difference. The last thing in the world that will help these people is to give them money. The threat of starvation used to be sufficient motivation to make them go to work. Now that has been removed. Only the little children, who are not responsible for the sins of the fathers, are worth helping.

In oruer to eliminate the causes of poverty one would have to be able to change human nature. The gospel can do this. But those who reject the teachings of Christ will not be helped by our preaching or our benevolence. What about the poor in the church?

Certainly we should help them if they really need it. But if Brother Kingry had his way, the church would be unnecessarily drained of funds. He says, “There should be no brother who is on welfare. The church cares for its own.” All of us who pay taxes know that part of this money goes for welfare; we do not begrudge that portion that goes to the aged and infirm. If one is qualified under the law ro receive welfare, and he really needs it, then he is certainly entitled to it. Since the money has been provided for his use, he is no longer in need. Why should the church help someone who is not in need? Brother Kingry would have the needy refuse the welfare that we have already paid for, and then make us pay for it again through the church.

I deny that the primary use of the weekly collection is to help the poor. That was the primary use of a special collection taken up under the direction of Paul to alleviate an emergency situation in Judea. If the famine had not occured, the indication is that no collection would have been taken for the saints in Judea. We read of churches supporting Paul and other preachers with their’ money. The primary work of the church is spiritual-to save souls. I heartily agree with Brother Blackmon who said that benevolence is no more the purpose of the church than having a doctor with a sick baby is the purpose of marriage. The situation in the church at Jerusalem was entirely unique, as Brother Kingry knows. Otherwise it would be authority for religious communism.

I must strongly protest the assertion that several brethren chipping in to meet a need on a one time basis is unscriptural. This is an individual action. Individuals acting alone or in concert have the right to help anyone who is in need at any time. The “gatherings” that Paul spoke of in 1 Cor. 16:1-3 referred to the , special collections for the saints in Judea. Paul was coming by to get the money. He did not have time to go around to every house and collect the money from each individual. So it was to be ready for him in one lump sum when he arrived.

Finally, it is ironic that Brother Kingry worries about racial discrimination causing non-whites to work at lower paying jobs at the very time that the Bakke case is before the Supreme Court. Reverse discrimination is the order of the day. Being white may be an advantage at times. But do not mention it to Allan Bakke.

Truth Magazine XXII: 9, pp. 153-154
March 2, 1978

By Morris W. R. Bailey

Having pointed out in a preceding article that handling aright the word of truth requires that we recognize the role of examples, it is incumbent that we study the somewhat complicated problem of

When Is An Example Binding?

By the term, binding example, it is understood that such an example would carry all mandatory force of a direct command, and that a failure to follow said example would constitute disobedience as surely as the failure to comply with any given command. There are three conceivable positions that may be occupied in regard to binding examples. They are as follows:

(1) No example is binding.

(2) All examples are binding.

(3) Some examples are binding, while others are not.

Having dealt with the first of these positions in the preceding article, I direct your attention to the second of these positions: all examples are binding.

This would obviously be an untenable position for anyone to occupy. Seventh Day Adventists have long made the argument that Jesus Christ kept the Sabbath, and since Jesus is held up as our example, (1 Peter 2:21) we must therefore keep the Sabbath day if we would follow His example. It is not sufficient for us to point out that Jesus kept the Passover, too, for if all examples are binding then we are under obligation to keep not only the Sabbath and Passover, but the various other feasts that Jesus kept.

In addition to the above observation, there is the fact that we find many examples of apostolic action as well as church action with evident apostolic approval, which we have always regarded as incidental and, therefore, not binding upon us today.

Take, for instance, the manner in which the apostles traveled from place to place. Much of the time they walked. Sometimes they traveled by sailboat (Acts 16:11). One gospel preacher rode in a chariot as he preached Jesus (Acts 8:26-31). While it is agreed that it would be permissible for gospel preachers to use those methods of travel today, I do not suppose that anyone would insist that the above examples are binding, or that the gospel preacher is rebelling against God when he drives an automobile or travels on a DC 8 jet to a preaching appointment.

There is also the example of the Lord’s supper being eaten in an upper room, or on the third floor of a building in Troas, as recorded in the twentieth chapter of Acts. When you emphasize the fact that Acts 20:7 is our authority for eating the Lord’s supper on the first day of the week, you will often meet the objection that the chapter that tells that the Lord’s supper was eaten on the first day of the week also tells us that it was eaten in an upper room, and, thus, if the first day of the week is binding, the upper room is equally so.

Still another example is that of using a personal messenger as the means of sending messages and money from place to place (1 Cor. 16:3). So when we try to point out to people today that in New Testament times when a church sent wages to a preacher (2 Cor. 11:8) or benevolent help to another church (Romans 15:26), the money was sent directly to the preacher or church, we meet the objection that if we insist upon following the example of sending directly to the recipient, then to be consistent we must use the personal messenger.

From what has been said it becomes evident that one is thus, by a process of elimination, forced to take position number three: some examples are binding, while others are not. This implies the need for some reliable criteria whereby we can distinguish between binding examples and such as only relate to incidental matters.

A Suggested Rule

For a fuller discussion of rules whereby we can determine the binding, or non-binding nature of examples, the reader is urged to procure and study brother Roy E. Cogdill’s book,, entitled Walking By Faith. Chapter five contains a splendid treatise on examples. In the remainder of this chapter, however, I propose to pursue a line of thought that appears to me as useful in distinguishing between binding and non-binding examples.

In the many discussions with digressive brethren over the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship, it has been pointed out repeatedly that in the apostolic age, and for some time afterward, no instruments of music were used. The force of this argument lies in the fact that they were widely used during the latter half of the previous dispensation. So it therefore cannot be said that there were no instruments in New Testament times, and therefore no opportunity to use them. The opportunity to use them was there. From this we conclude that the Holy Spirit, who guided the apostles in all truth in setting things in order in the churches and establishing their system of worship deliberately excluded instruments of music.

From this fact a principle emerges, which we state in the following words: Whenever we find an example of a practice having been excluded when there was opportunity to include it: or whenever we find an example of something practiced exclusively when other options were available; or wherever we find that a command was consistently carried out in a certain way when other ways of carrying it out were possible, then we may reasonably conclude that the thing excluded, or the thing practiced, or the way in which the command was executed as a part of the truth revealed by, the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and therefore becomes a binding example to us.

This is not to say that other rules suggested by brethren who have written on the subject are not useful. They are useful. But it is my conviction that the above rule will greatly assist in determining whether a given example is of binding force because of its specific nature, or if it relates only to incidental matters. I shall now apply the above rule to some matters that have been the occasion for considerable discussion during the past few years.

The Meeting At Troas

Acts 20:7 says: “And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, intending to depart on the morrow . . . .” This example is being repudiated by some as having any authority within itself to bind on us the eating of the Lord’s supper exclusively on the first day of the week. One writer (J. D. Thomas, in his book, We Be Brethren) said: “There is nothing in the context of Acts 20:7 to prove that the first-day-of-the-week-meeting was not just an optional meeting.”

This raises a question implied in the rule I suggested. Was there the opportunity to have met on some other day? Does the context indicate that the fact that they met on the first day of the week, and not the third or fourth day, was only incidental? Or does the context indicate that it was a deliberate act.

I suppose that Brother Thomas would agree that verse 6 is in the context, so let us notice it. “And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we tarried seven days.” Notice that expression: “we tarried seven days.” So there were seven days when they had the opportunity to meet to break bread. But it was not until seven days had elapsed that they met together to break bread which was done on the first day of the week. The matter of their tarrying for seven days is all the more significant when compared with another verse, also in the context. Verse 16 says: “For . . . he was hastening if it were possible for him to be at Jerusalem for the day of Pentecost.”

Tarrying for seven days on a journey when one is hastening to reach a destination is unusual behavior, and can be accounted for only on the basis that there was sufficient reason for such tarrying. But since they met together to break bread on the first day of the week following the seven days of tarrying and the following day resumed their journey, is it not evident that meeting on the first day of the week was the established practice of the disciples? Can anyone give a more logical reason? And since the meeting on the first day of the week to break bread occurred with the approval of an apostle, would it not fall into the category of an apostolically approved example? Moreover, since it is the only scripture that gives us any information as to when to eat the Lord’s supper, are we not thus limited to that one day?

The point is, it was obviously by design that they met on the first day of the week to break bread when they had the opportunity to meet on any one of seven other days.

Human Organizations And Sponsoring Churches

The same rule concerning opportunity may also be applied with reference to human benevolent societies built and supported by the church and sponsoring churches. While these did not exist in New Testament times, it was not for lack of opportunity. There were the poor who needed to be cared for. There was the never ending need to preach the gospel. Had the disciples of that day been thus minded they could have formed a missionary society, and Paul with his tireless zeal would have made a splendid president. They could also have formed benevolent societies with their boards of directors to care for the poor, and Barnabas, with his concern for the poor would have made a splendid president of such an institution. The church at Thessalonica with its zeal for the spread of the gospel (1 Thess. 1:8) could have promoted itself into a sponsoring church, soliciting and receiving funds from other churches to do “a great work.” Yes, the opportunity for the missionary society, the benevolent society, and the sponsoring church was there. But just as the mechanical instrument is conspicuously absent from the worship of the New Testament church, go also were the institutions and organizations of men conspicuously absent from its work. Instead, we know that, working in their congregational capacity, they cared for the poor, and in a third of a century preached the gospel throughout the whole inhabited world (Col. 1:23).

Methods Of Travel, And Personal Messengers

To the foregoing conclusion the objection is sometimes raised that if we must follow the examples of the New Testament church in the matter of benevolence and evangelism, then we must follow the examples of means of travel and the personal messenger for conveyance of letters and money.

But the cases are not parallel. Think a minute. Why did not Paul drive an automobile, ride a train, or fly in a DC 8 jet? Obviously because there were none and, hence, there was no opportunity. Does anyone believe that Paul would have walked, or even ridden in a chariot of that day if our modern vehicles had been available?

Why do we not use the personal messenger today? Again, think a minute. In New Testament times they did not have our modern postal system. Hence the need for the personal messenger. Does anyone believe that if our modern postal system had been in existence then, that Paul would have used a personal messenger?

I trust that the foregoing thoughts may serve to throw some light on the much-discussed question of when examples become a pattern that must be followed in doing the Lord’s work in the Lord’s way.

Truth Magazine XXII: 9, pp. 151-153
March 2, 1978

By Lewis Willis

There are 130 million people in this nation who belong to a church or a synagogue. Their backgrounds, convictions and non-convictions are as varied as the multitude of religious orders to which they belong. As the sexual revolution has spread its influence, to the surprise of many these religious organizations have emerged as a new battleground. Few organizations have escaped the clamor and challenge wrought by those who would change the old order on sexual morality. The main reason for involving religion in this on-going debate is that advocates and opponents are both seeking religion’s stamp of approval for their views. The results of this upheaval are only beginning to appear. However, that appearance, to date, is one that produces shock and dismay.

I have no desire to be indelicate or indiscreet, but I do want to call to your attention some features of the debate now raging and some of the indefensible actions, statements and positions that are emerging. It would appear to me that a reflection of this sort would be helpful in solidifying our thoughts on this contemporary controversy. This, I am persuaded, is an essential thing for us to do as history records that few, if any, influences in denominationalism totally escape the Lord’s Church. It will be to our sorrow and disgrace if we fail to formulate a solid, scriptural base upon which to meet this obvious rebellion against God and His Word.

Definition of this changing religious posture is not easily discerned. Primarily, most of us move within a limited fellowship and it is hardly possible to identify moors outside of that fellowship. We must, then, rely upon those who study such things to understand these changes in the infancy stages of them. I have before me an article from U.S. News & World Report, September 26, 1977, in which the manifestation of this changing attitude is exposed. So, what upheaval has been caused by the sexual revolution?

To meet the layman’s demand for sanction or aid in sexual concerns, the denominations are turning to “sex seminars” or “Marriage encounters,” so that theologists can prescribe answers for problems in these areas. The Catholic Church has a program involving about 100,000 couples a year. As an indication for the inroads of such among brethren, the liberal Southwest Church of Christ in Amarillo, Texas conducted a “Marriage Enrichment Seminar” not too many months ago. Among the sectarians, the advise these couples receive is sometimes unexpected and shocking. A recent survey of Catholic priests in Chicago shows that 40 to 50 per cent of them no longer oppose homosexuality and premarital sexual relationships. Albert C. Outler of Southern Methodist University School of Theology says, “I can’t imagine anyone leaving this school with a knee-jerk reflex that sex is bad, and excusable only in marriage.” How would you like to hear your preacher tell his audience not to concern itself over homosexuality, premarital and extra-marital sexual relationships? And, with most religionists, the “Pastor’s” word is all that is needed to justify a practice.

This movement to sexual interests prompted Martin E. Marty, professor of church history at the University of Chicago, to observe, “Instead of the language of the cross, love and sacrifice for others, we’re getting the message of the new intimacy-do whatever makes you feel good as long as you don’t hurt anybody else.” Situation Ethics, as defined in 1966 by Episcopal theologian, Joseph Fletcher, has been taught in the seminaries and is now being practically applied by his disciples in their counseling sessions. The sanction of the “Church” is given to almost any form of wickedness that the members and the “clergy” engage in to “feel good.” Preachers are telling members that the “anything goes” philosophy is a valid basis in living one’s life. Jesus Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2) is an unintelligible language to the ministers of sociology who are disguised as the champions of Christianity. And, most people could care less!

Thus, this new sexualism prompted the appointment of Beverly Messenger-Harris as first female priest to head an Episcopal parish in the United States. The feminist movement touched the compromising, anti-scriptural hierarchy- . of this denomination and they changed creedal policy to accommodate their demands-a move which has brought a major division in their ranks. The gay rights people, encouraged by the successes of the feminists, have launched their campaign and the Episcopalians have ordained an acknowledged lesbian as one of its new female priests. The United Church of Christ, accepting a report suggesting that the Bible should not be the only guide to morality in sex, ordained an avowed homosexual to its ministry. The sexual revolution is spreading its influence and has now made progress in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). An Amarillo Globe News article, October 25, 1977, reports that the General Assembly of the Christian Church, being moved by discrimination and unfairly and unevenly applied sodomy laws applied against homosexuals, passed by a vote of 2,541 to 1,312, a resolution calling for laws to “end the denial of civil rights and the violation of civil liberties for reasons of sexual orientation or preference.” The body then voted to initiate a study by local congregations to work for human and civil rights for homosexuals. These are the descendants of those modernists who left our ranks about 125 years ago so that they could use a piano in their worship!

Passages like Gen. 19:4ff, dealing with the sins of Sodom, and Rom. 1:26-27, defining the sins of the Gentiles, have been assailed by these religious libertarians. They contend “that these passages must be interpreted more subtly to separate the true religious message from the cultural biases of the Biblical period” (my emphasis; LW). These theologians say that an act is right if it is “self-liberating, other-enriching, honest, faithful, socially responsible, life-serving and joyous.” Basically, they are saying forget the Bible and do whatever you wish-and we will find some means to justify it for you!

Hence, the sexual revolution continues its invasion of religion. And, the leadership is doing nothing to stop it. Instead, they are endorsing the effort. In this, they are like those in Rom. 1:32 “who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

Truth Magazine XXII: 9, pp. 150-151
March 2, 1978

By Earl Robertson

In the synagogue in Thessalonica, Paul and Silas preached “there is another king, one Jesus” (Acts 17:7). It was not then difficult to prove that Jesus was king, but it was difficult to cause men to believe it. The same is true today. Many who claim to be Christians deny the kingship of Jesus! The doctrine of premillennialism denies that Christ is king-and many denominations are, in teaching, premillennial to the core.

Denominations talk about the “church age.” They believe the Old Testament kingdom prophecies were not fulfilled when Jesus came. This, they say, was because the Jews rejected Him. Because of this rejection, He could not then do what He came to do-establish His kingdom; so, as a substitute for the kingdom, He built the church. Some ,. call the church a “contingent” (accident, emergency, liability). The theory of premillennialism makes the church a mere emergency measure resulting from a promissory default and a prophetical fiasco. If Christ now has no kingdom, He is not now king! It is absurd to think of Jesus being king but having no kingdom. The church and the kingdom are one and the same people.

Ezekiel, speaking of the one nation that would be made of all nations under the rule of Jesus, said, “And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: They shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them” (Ezek 37:24). Ezekiel was not speaking of David himself, bur of his seed. David was dead when the prophet said this and has remained so. “Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day” (Acts 2:29). Ezekiel was restating the same promise regarding David’s posterity that God told David would happen: “And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shaft sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever” (2 Sam. 7:12, 13). David had to be dead when God would do with his posterity the things promised!

Jesus is king and has a kingdom-His kingdom (Col. 1:13). He went to heaven to receive it (Dan. 7:13, 14; Lk. 19:12-15; Heb. 12:28; Acts 1 and 2). He is king of kings and lord of lords (1 Tim. 6:15), premillennialism to the contrary, notwithstanding.

Truth Magazine XXII: 9, p. 149
March 2, 1978