C.B. Shropshire November 14, 1908 – July 17, 1998

By Benjamin M. Shropshire

Charles Benjamin Shropshire, long-time gospel preacher in the Pacific Northwest, passed away on Friday, July 17, 1998 in Sherwood, Oregon. The funeral was conducted at Finley’s Sunset Hills Memorial Park in Portland, Oregon on Thursday, July 23, 1998 with Mark Dunagan of Beaver- ton, Oregon, Jerry Earnhart of Canby, Oregon, and others speaking to a gathering of family, friends, and brethren. He was buried the following day at the Mt. Hope Cemetery in Baker City, Oregon.

Ben was born to Benjamin W. and Annie D. Shropshire on November 14, 1908 in their ranch home in the com- munity of Paint Creek, near Robert Lee, Texas. He was baptized into Christ at the age of twelve, and preached his first sermon at fourteen. He grew up as a “cowboy,” working on the family ranch and for other nearby ranchers. At the age of fifteen he began working in a cotton gin in Robert Lee, and continued in this trade for the next four years, moving from the Rio Grande Valley to southern Oklahoma. In 1925 he was enrolled for one term at Abilene Christian College, during which time he preached by appointment for nearby congregations.

By 1927 he had advanced to “chief ginner,” earning enough money to pay cash for a new Chevrolet convertible. On a blind date he met Dainey Laird, whom he married on November 27, 1927. He went into business with his father, raising cotton, but lost money when prices fell, and had to seek employment elsewhere. He began to work as a “farm-to-farm” salesman for a general merchandise store during the early depression years. Later, he found work with a new grocery store in Eldorado, where he managed the meat department. In the spring of 1931 he was invited by the congregation in Crane, Texas to move there and work with them, which was the beginning of a long relationship with that congregation from which he received support on an “on again, off again” basis that lasted until he retired from full-time preaching in 1992.

After two years Ben and Dainey left Crane and moved to work with a congregation in Wink, Texas, and, after that he preached for congregations in Monahans, Odessa, Meadow, and Farmersville. During these years he also traveled some for Boles Orphan Home, raising money from churches to support the home. After a conversation with Roy Cogdill and much further study, however, he determined that it was not scriptural to support such institutions from congregational treasuries.

Early in 1941, while working with the congregation in Farmersville, Ben received a letter from Jimmy Lovell, asking him to consider moving to Portland, Oregon to work with the 43rd and Division Streets congregation. The move was made that spring. During the next few years thousands of people would move from the south to the Northwest to work in the defense industries (primarily ship yards), and this would greatly contribute to unprecedented growth of the church during the war years. He held meetings all over Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and in Alaska (at the end of the war), and helped to establish many new congregations. After the war he moved his family to Goldendale, Washington to work with the congregation there, and subsequently worked with congregations in Vancouver, Washington, and at Dalles and Hillsboro, both in Oregon. In 1960 he began working with the congregation in Reno, Nevada, but moved back to Oregon in 1964 to work with the church in Beaverton, and, later, in Hermiston. He then moved to California to work with congregations in Napa and San Pablo for two or three years, but returned to Oregon, where he worked with congregations at Pendleton, Baker City, John Day, and Tualatin, until his retirement at the age of 84 in 1992.

Though he had many opportunities to work with large congregations that could have supported him comfortably while he preached the gospel, for the most part, he chose to work with newly established, weak, or small congregations that could not support him adequately. To support his family he received wages from other congregations and individuals, and sometimes found secular employment either to supplement the support he was receiving from churches or, sometimes, to provide his total income. He lived to preach the gospel wherever he could, and without regard to whether he would receive sufficient support while doing so.

His first wife, Dainey, passed away in the summer of 1982, after several years of severe heart problems. Ben had suffered a severe heart attack himself in 1980 and another one in 1982. In January 1983 he and Carrie Patton Gatson were married, and they continued to live for awhile in Baker City, Oregon. After his retirement in 1992, Ben and Carrie became members of the Beaverton, Oregon congregation, where Carrie remains a member.

Ben is survived by his wife, Carrie Shropshire of Sherwood, Oregon; by his four children, Peggy Meyer of
Moraga, CA, Benj. M. Shropshire of St. Louis, MO, James H. Shropshire of Hermiston, OR, and Janice Rich of San Marcos, CA; and by other step-children, two sisters-in-law, sixteen grandchildren and twenty-three great- grandchildren.

Ben’s life and work made a significant impact on the cause of Christ in the Pacific Northwest, though he would be the first to give God the glory and praise. He will be long remembered by the host of brethren and friends in that part of the country who were blessed by the life he lived and in which they were privileged to share.

Congregational Worship in Song

By Hobart D. Kanatzar

I believe that the five parts of a worship service are of equal importance. We tend to put greater effort to- ward the teaching of a lesson than the breaking of bread, praying, giving, and singing. I have observed that in some congregations the part of the worship service given to singing has a lack of forethought. Some congregations are selecting songs in the last few minutes before the start of the worship service.

Singing of hymns during a worship service is required by God. As we sing praises to God, we teach and admonish each other (Col. 3:16). To best use the song service it should complement the lesson given by the evangelist. The use of songs to complement the thoughts of the lesson requires pre-planning by the evangelist and the song leader. The two confer during the week and select songs that lead one’s thoughts to those to be presented by the evangelist.

After the songs have been selected, the song leader reviews the words in each song. The words used by the poet will establish the tempo that the song is to be sung in. Some songs are to be sung as an anthem, some as reflecting joy and gladness, and some as serious. Some songs are written to have more than one tempo to express the thought being portrayed. I have in mind the song “Did You Think To Pray.” This song starts with somber and serious thoughts. The chorus changes to thankful thoughts and the last four words put forth a strong remembrance. A properly sung song will lead the congregation to sing from the heart to the Lord (Eph. 5:19).

Another point that a song leader must consider is to determine if the songs selected meet the singing capabilities of the congregation. If selected songs have leading parts done by the alto, bass, or tenor voices, the congregation must have the capability to sing the parts. Selecting songs that the congregation cannot sing properly has a negative effect on the worship service.

The evangelist studies how that he may best present the lesson to the congregation to achieve the best results. A song leader must work toward the same end results in the song service. A song leader must use expression in his voice to match the words of the song. Good eye contact is necessary to lead the congregation in the thoughts expressed. Beside having a complementary facial expression, the song book should be on the podium so that, when necessary, both hands and arms can be used in directing the song. At times alto, tenor, or bass parts need to be brought in on time. The director should be well enough known by the congregation that he can use his left hand to bring in whatever part is required. The words of a song can, at times, be better expressed by singing softly or mid-voice or loudly which requires a director to give the proper arm and hand motions to the congregation. This is another reason for the song book to be on the podium and not held by the director.

To be able to start a song on the proper pitch can best be accomplished by a pitch pipe. Each member of the congregation should hear the pitch whether it comes from the pitch pipe or the director. When a song leader pitches a song so that he is the only one who hears the pitch and starts the song, it may be several words into the song before the congregation can find their note and start to sing.

Some song leaders do not have a voice strong enough to lead a congregation in a song service. The song leader must start strong and be able to be heard by the congregation throughout the song. Usually, a song leader not heard by the congregation will allow the congregation to pull the tempo down to a funeral dirge which detracts from the meaning of the song.

Today’s attitude towards dress is of a casual nature. This is an area that we need to seriously consider. In the Old Testament, God required the priests that served in the temple to wash and clean themselves and dress as prescribed by God. When you attend a wedding or a funeral, the accepted dress is a suit for men and a dress for women. Here you are only honoring a human being. It is of far greater importance to dress in clothing that is the best that we have for a worship service. I say the best that we have because during the Great Depression some people owned only work clothes. These people would be clean when they came to worship. I have never seen a preacher get up to deliver a worship service lesson dressed in anything other than a suit. My feeling is that a song leader is as important to the worship service as a preacher; therefore, a suit is appropriate for the song leader during a worship service. Some people today dress for the Sunday morning service in a suit or dress and then come to the evening and Wednesday worship services dressed for some casual sporting event. My understanding is that all worship services are of equal importance. By dressing in a casual manner we automatically establish that one worship service has more importance than the other.

One other thought that is necessary to consider. An evangelist spends hours preparing a lesson that will hopefully cause a person to become a child of God. The evangelist will bring the congregation’s thoughts to a point where someone may be encouraged to answer the invitation. The song leader should be on the front row so that he may take only a few steps and start the song with a minimum of delay. Some song leaders want to sit with their families in the rear of the building. This requires some bit of a delay to walk to the front of the building to start the song. This delay could cause a negative effect on some who may have been considering answering the call.

Preaching the Gospel in a Postmodern World (2)

By David McClister

In the previous article we introduced the basic tenets of postmodernism, a way of thinking that already has a firm foothold in the educational and social institutions in this country and that promises to be a formidable opponent of the faith in the days ahead of us. What can we do in the face of this great enemy of the truth? How can we preach in a world where more and more people are rejecting the ideas of absolute truth, a spiritual realm, and a transcendent God who is the source of life and morality? These concerns deserve some attention.

Of course, we must not sell out to non-biblical ideas. There will be the temptation on the part of some to postmodernize the gospel and change it to make it more palatable to those who have accepted the postmodern way of thinking. It may be that this is already behind some of the efforts of some of our own brethren to broaden fellowship beyond biblical limits. Could it be that a postmodern de- valuation of the truth and a despising of the idea that God’s truth does not change is playing a part in some attempts to create fellowship with those who are not in fellowship with God? I fear this may be the case. The only way to allow for more latitude in fellowship is to deny that there is only one legitimate faith (Eph. 4:5), and the movement in this direction by some brethren shows all the signs of a typical postmodern shift.

Is it possible to find something useful in postmodernism, something that will help us communicate the gospel to others? Again, we must not change the gospel, and we must not be ashamed to preach it when it is “out of season” to do so (2 Tim. 4:2). If the world is at odds with the gospel message, so be it. We must please God rather than tickle the ears of men. But it seems that there may be a few things about postmodernism that may give us room to present the unaltered gospel. For example, when rationalism was in its heyday, defenders of the Bible rightly emphasized that there are rational grounds for belief and they appealed to the evidence (rational, archaeological, scientific, etc.) sup- porting the biblical claims. They used a rational method to preach to people whose thinking was dominated by rationalism. The same kind of thing may be possible in various ways with postmodernism.

First, postmodernists believe that significance lies only in society. Can we not similarly assert that man’s real happiness and worth and purpose lie not in looking to himself or to this world, but that it is found only when he is a member of God’s society, the church? Like the postmodernists, we agree that isolation and retreat within oneself is no way to find meaning in life. Life has meaning only in relationships. But it is not in a set of purely human relationships that such happiness and purpose is found. Those things are found only in relationship with God and with others who are in relationship with him also. God has created a fellowship, a spiritual society if you will, a spiritual community in which we can find our proper place and be happy. The postmodernists are right to assert that man can find significance in society, but they are looking for it in the wrong society. What man wants and needs exists in God’s society, the church, not in man’s society.

Similarly, postmodernists deny that reason is the means to the truth. They have rejected the claims of modernism that man could somehow, on his own, find such a thing called the truth. Well, we would agree. Man cannot, on his own, know the truth. He needs revelation from God to do that. Human reason is not a tool for discovery of the truth. It is instead a tool for analyzing information that is fed to it. That is, reason needs something to work on, it needs information to be supplied to it. Reason then appropriates that information by comparing it to what is already known. In a similar way, can we not preach that reason alone can- not get a man to God? Man’s knowledge of the truth is the result of revelation from God, not the result of the working of his own reason (see 1 Cor. 2:6-16). We would then agree with the postmodernist that reason does not bring us to the truth. The mistake the postmodernist makes here is that he comes to the erroneous conclusion that there is no truth at all. We assert that there is truth, but that we do not know that truth simply by reasoning our way to it. It comes from God and is received by faith.

A third area of agreement with postmodern thinking is in the way it views information. Modernists were convinced that man could find, through reason and other means, the truth, and that this truth would be the answer to man’s problems. Under modernism man searched and learned more about the world than he ever had. It was under the tutelage of modernism that the information age came into full bloom. Man thought that the answer to his problems lies in knowledge, that the key to a longer and better life was to gather information. Some great things came from this, such as the advance of medical technology. Post- modernism, however, rejects the idea that knowledge or information is our savior. With this we can agree. Secular knowledge (which is often more speculation than anything else) is not the answer. We could even go as far as to say that even information about God is not enough. The gospel is not simply data given to us from God, and receiving the gospel is not like storing information in a computer database to be rearranged and manipulated. The gospel is wisdom from God (1 Cor 1:24) and it produces faith and its fruits in our lives. Preaching and receiving the gospel is not an intellectual exercise. It has to do with creating a new man with a new heart, a new mind, and a new character. The information alone does not save. What saves us is when we make our lives conform to the revealed truth of God.

 

Changing the gospel to fit a changing world is not an option, but we can usually find a way to use the unbeliever’s thoughts to introduce him to the gospel. Paul used this very method in Acts 17 when he preached to the Greeks in ancient Athens. We should try to do the same thing in the present day. If history continues on the course it has been going, postmodernism will someday be replaced by something else, but while it is here we have to find ways to preach to those who are steeped in it.

The Story of Two Contractors

By Donald P. Ames

Two men, good friends, decided to build homes on the ocean front. The first man consulted an engineer, who advised him to build back about a block on a good rock foundation. This required a road to be made to deliver the materials, the clearing of the land, and not quite as pretty a view as he had hoped for. Nevertheless, taking the experience of the engineer into consideration, he followed his instructions. Finally his house was finished, and he moved in.

The second man looked at all the “extras” the first had incurred, and decided he had learned from the first man’s “mistakes.” He built his house much closer to the beach. And since he did not have to hire a special engineer, clear the land, and build a special road, he was able to build an even nicer home than the first man. Indeed he was proud of his fine home and happily moved into it.

As the summer came, the second man enjoyed many advantages. He had a nice beach for his kids to play on right by the house. Friends flocked in, admiring the view, the sunset over the ocean, and the convenience. “Why one could almost fish from the front porch and not have to sit in the hot sun,” they said. And he would point out his friend’s house and openly wonder why anyone would want to build so far from such beauty.

Even his friend began to have second thoughts. If he had not spent so much on the “extras,” he could have had an even bigger, nicer home. And he grew tired of lugging all his fishing gear down to the beach. Friends seemed to flock to his friend’s house, but not nearly as many came to his. He even began to question if perhaps he had made a mistake since his friend was doing so well. Maybe he ought to put his house up for sale, and build one down on the beach like his friend had done. After all, his friend had lived there for several years and was having great fun. His friend’s house was bigger and nicer. It was certainly more convenient. And his friend was a good man, well informed and practical; and in this case, maybe had shown the greater wisdom. “Why had he listened to that engineer in the first place?” he wondered.

Then one year an “E1 Nina” developed. The weather began to change and storms became more frequent. As the storms increased in intensity, so did the size of the waves. Soon the beach began to erode and disappear. Before long, the house of his friend was endangered. They tried to stop the erosion, but to no avail. The sand began vanishing, and the house began to totter. Finally it cracked in half and fell into the ocean. The waves soon moved up and the rest of the house collapsed. His friend was ruined. All that he had was tied up in that home. His furniture was gone. The insurance did not cover this type of storm. It was a total loss!

However, since his own house was further away and on a solid foundation, it was not affected. “How thankful I am,” said his wife, “that we hired that engineer. Our house may not have been as big and convenient as his, but at least we still have a home.”

So is he that hears the word of the Lord and does it. Others may evaluate both houses, and maybe even pro- claiming the one bigger, better, and nicer than the other. They may regard the character of both contractors to be equally as good. You may even begin to question of what value is it to be a Christian — he has all of the advantages! But watch and wait . . . wait . . . wait! When the storms of life do come — and they will come — when the storms of grief, of bereavement, and of temptations, etc. come; the house built solidly on the word of God will be the house standing strong after the sweeping storms are passed. It will be able to weather the storms because it had God as its engineer! It had God as a sure foundation! And it had God in its future!

Now, what kind of a foundation are you building on? Go back and read Matthew 7:24-27 and Psalm 73!