Truth Magazine

By William V Beasley

Me thinks I can hear one say, “Preacher, have you taken leave of your senses? Don’t you know that Jesus is the Savior?” Yes, I know Jesus is my Savior and I also know what my Savior taught about baptism and salvation. It was Jesus who said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. . .” (Mark 16:16). Jesus, the savior, saves those who obey Him: “And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him” (Heb. 5:9).

But, dear friend, this is not the reason I said, “baptism saves.” I said it because. God said: “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us. . .” (1 Pet. 3:21). Much of the religious world has changed “now” to “not”. If you do not believe baptism is essential to salvation, your argument is not with me, but with God-I merely quoted from His book.

If Jesus saves the obedient, those who are baptized, what is your condition if you have not been baptized? Or if you have been baptized for the wrong reason (thinking you were already saved)?

Truth Magazine XX: 46, p. 731
November 18, 1976

By Wallace H. Little

Harold Trimble, who returned from a preaching visit to the Philippine Islands earlier this year, remarked that one who goes there will receive all kinds of appeals for help, and each one will tear at your heart. He is so right!

Basically, their appeals for assistance break down into two major categories. These are: support in preaching the gospel, and benevolence. This latter is subdivided into two different areas: individual, where the person himself or his family is in need, and a more broad appeal, as, when a bad typhoon hits that nation causing wide-spread damage and suffering, which our brethren, along with the spiritual Gentiles must endure.

I receive several urgent appeals each week, seeking financial assistance, from brethren who are preaching, or want to preach the gospel of Christ there. My experience tells me most of these men are honest and sincere, motivated by the desire to save their fellow citizens in that nation. Their appeals tug at my heart, and especially so since I know the money is simply not available today among U.S. saints to satisfy these urgent requests. In the Philippines, there are more than 350 men preaching, either full-time or as they have opportunity, who also oppose the institutional apostasy. Of these, more than 100 currently are supported by brethren in the U.S. Support in preaching is more critical in their economy than in our own. In my case, I provided my own support for the first eleven years I preached. I did not have all the time I wanted for activities such as studying, preparing lessons, writing, visiting brethren in the congregation, and so on, but the point is, I was able to do it. Paul J. Casebolt, of Paden City, West Virginia, still does so, and those who know him and his work would hardly argue he is not effective. And there are others. Now in our country, we can do this, basically, for two reasons: first, most secular work is on an eight-hour day, five-day week; and second, our economy provides the cash flow we need to take care of our living requirements, and often more than that, without the necessity of supplementing it with gardens and raising our own animals for food. The Philippine economy provides neither. Most of the jobs available to brethren there are far more demanding of time than ours. Additionally, even with a secular job, most brethren need to supplement their income by raising a great deal of their own food. The net effect is to so reduce the time a man has for preaching that his effectiveness is severely impaired.

This limited amount of income from secular work, incidentally, is the basic reason why most churches there are presently incapable of supporting their own preachers. Even if all Filipino saints contributed Scripturally, however, and the preachers received an income roughly equal to that of the members, they would still have to do as the members do, and get out and raise most of their food. Consequently, the work would suffer considerably because of the reduced time they could spend doing it. Additionally, many of the preachers there, from their income, provide the congregation with a place of worship. Sometimes it is their own home, when they are able to locate and rent one large enough for this. At other times, it is a separate place. And because transportation is, by their standards, so expensive, places of worship must be within walking distance of where brethren live. This accounts for several smaller churches in towns when in the U.S., all would combine into one. Yet more, many, if not most of the preachers preach for several churches, increasing their expenses, particularly for transportation. This is necessary, for if they do not do so, the other churches would not be edified.

There is some inequity in support provided. First, there have been several men found to be plainly dishonest. Largely, these have been identified and their support has been cut off. This does not mean such will not happen again, but it is less likely. Beyond dishonesty, some few men are over-supported in terms of their needs (they usually use the money in other ways to spread the gospel) while a great number are grossly under-supported. And there are several hundred deserving men, capable men, men eager to preach God’s gospel who are totally without support. The work in the nation suffers from all these circumstances. There has been some criticism of these inequities, both from Filipino brethren themselves and from Americans. But I know of no way to cure them short of an unscriptural centralized organization through which all recommendations for support would be approved and all monies dispensed to the preachers there. I have as much objection to that as I have to the Philippine Bible College (PBC) and its practices along this line over the years.

There is also a good deal of naivety on the part of Filipino preachers concerning both the income American brethren have, and our desire to help spread the gospel overseas. First, it is assumed we are rich; the fact we are Americans, to them, is the absolute proof this is true. With some, no amount of explanation changes their mind. The result is they simply do not understand when they can live on $100.00 per month, and an American saint earns $1000.00 monthly, why the American cannot just take the $900.00 above his 11 needs” and use it to support nine Filipino preachers. This misunderstanding is not universal . . . but it is sufficiently wide-spread that many believe it, and consequently question the sincerity of our claims to be genuinely interested in spreading the gospel “in all the world”. Second, even many of the Filipino preachers who know such is not representative, make the mistake of assuming all American brethren are as eager as they are to spread the gospel in the Philippines among their people. This produces considerable frustration when they seek support, and wait, and wait, and wait for long months and years and are still without support. The fact is, there are many U.S. saints who are strongly opposed to taking the gospel overseas “until we have converted the people in our town”. (Do we possibly say this to protect “our own” bank account?) And there are many more who, while not necessarily opposed to helping overseas work, have never given it serious consideration, and unless jolted out of their complacency, will not do so. One very disturbing thing is, there are a number of congregations, plural (and I am hearing of others from time to time, increasing the number), which have thousands of dollars stashed away, doing nothing but collecting 6% interest (Scripture, please?) and with no plans for using this money in the service of the Lord. What poor stewardship! What a waste in a world of spiritual need and a super-abundance of opportunities to share in the fulfilling of this!

Now let us consider the benevolent appeals. Several times in the past decade, the Philippine Islands have been hit by devestating typhoons resulting in unbelievable destruction and hardship among all there, including brethren. There have been two bad typhoons this year, for which relief was necessary, although not on as large a scale as in earlier years. When they are hit with wide-spread flooding,. much of the food supply for the coming months is wiped out; the crop is destroyed and a new one must be planted, and until it is harvested, times will be hard indeed. Consecutive typhoons in the same season are especially hurtful, for the second crop is often damaged or destroyed, too. A surplus of food which we enjoy in the U.S. is non existent there. Crop failure, for whatever the cause, is a disaster.

I have no accurate count of the total benevolent assistance which has been sent there over the years, but I do know it has been considerable, likely far more than I am aware of. Certainally no one is obliged to keep me informed as to the benevolence being practiced by them in the Philippines. Nearly all I know of sent has been faithfully handled and Scripturally distributed and used to satisfy the need. Even allowing for two instances of known dishonesty, the overwhelming bulk of all that has been sent to these needs has gotten directly into the hands of the needy rapidly and without having a portion skimmed off “for administration”. Our liberal brethren for years claimed some sort of central oversight is necessary to prevent dishonesty and insure the assistance gets to the need. These instances in the Philippines and one in Nigeria have proven by a demonstration (for those who needed it) that God’s way is far superior to mans!

It would be pleasant to hope such benevolent appeals will diminish, and brethren there, and the government as well, will be able to provide for these needs as they arise. But such thinking is wishful and impractical. For the same reason most preachers will continue to need outside support for a long time, the brethren in crisis situations will need benevolence.

The other facet of benevolence, that of individual need, requires some explanation. $300.00 PER YEAR is about what many of the Filipino brethren earn. That sum will not support them, and especially if they have to purchase their food. Food prices, even for staple items, are grossly high, considering the income levels. This means our brethren must grow much of their own food, both vegetables and meat. And it also means there is precious little surplus from one season to the next, so they are tied very closely to the current crop. Hence whatever damages their crop, even partially, imposes a great economic hardship on them. Also, because they must live so closely tied to their food production, they are almost totally unprepared for emergencies, such as a sudden medical problem. Over the years many brethren have written asking, nay, pleading to help them with their medical or some other emergency expense which was totally beyond their means. I would have needed the resources of Ft. Knox to respond to more than a pitifully few.

I have tried to paint a picture so American saints may have a better understanding of what the situation is actually like in the Philippines. Folks tend to judge by their own standards and experiences. Such is inadequate as a yardstick for the Philippines. There is no common denominator in economic matters.

I urge churches and individuals to reassess their thinking on these things and rearrange their priorities. How much right do churches here have to put money into a bank account to earn interest when there are millions of souls there dying out of the Lord and men there capable and willing to preach, if they were only enabled to do so? We can examine this same principle from an individual standpoint also. Some Scriptures we might consider in this are: Mt. 28:19,20; Mk. 16:15,16; 2 Tim. 2:2; Jas. 2:14-18; Mk. 12:28-31; Mt. 6:33. There are others, but these will do as a starter.

I pray this explanation has cleared up some misconceptions concerning our brethren in the Philippine Islands, and the work of Christ in that nation.

Truth Magazine XX: 46, pp. 730-731
November 18, 1976

By George T. Eldridge

Individually Purchased Income Protection Insurance

Individuals can pay for their health insurance or the employer (the church) can pay all or part of the premiums.

Question: Are premiums paid for income protection insurance tax deductible as a medical expense? Answer: No.

Question: Are income protection benefits tax free? Answer: Yes (Internal Revenue Code, 1, R. C., Section 104).

Question: Are premiums paid for accidental death coverage and specific loss coverage (loss of limb, loss of sight, for example) tax deductible as a medical expense? Answer: No.

Question: Are the benefits received tinder accidental death and specific loss coverage subject to income taxes? Answer: No, these benefits are tax free (L R. C. Section 101 a; Regulation 1.101-1 [a]).

Tax Tips

Since all benefit payments received from income protection coverage are tax free, this money can be very helpful during the period of disability, A broad selection of benefit periods are available, with the best plan being Lifetime Accident with Sickness to Age 65. How many preachers could have had it easier during their disability if this income protection insurance had been bought? I can think of two preachers whom I know well that could use this insurance now, but their health status would make them be rejected by all insurance companies. It would be scriptural as well as with much wisdom being shown if churches would pay for this coverage. This would be on the same basis as churches aiding the preacher in the payment of his Social Security.

Individual Hospitalization, Surgical, Medical Insurance

Question: Are premiums paid for hospital, surgical, or medical coverage tax deductible as a medical expense? Answer: Yes. In itemizing his deductions, the policyholder may deduct one-half the premiums paid for insurance to reimburse him for hospital, medical, or surgical expenses (not to exceed $150.00). This is a basic deduction. The balance of the premiums paid for such coverage may be included in his regular medical expense calculation. If all his medical expenses, including the balance of the premiums, are more than three percent of his adjusted gross income, the excess may be deducted.

Question: Are the $5.60 monthly premiums paid for Part B of Medicare included in the above rule? Answer: Yes. The individual $5.60 payments may be included in the regular medical expense calculation.

Employer Paid Health Insurance Plan

Under the Internal Revenue Code, an employer may establish a health insurance for one or more employees. Based on that Code, the church is an employer and the preacher is an employee. If the church establishes such a plan, the tax principles set out in the following paragraphs apply.

Question: If the employer does pay all or part of the premiums, whether for an individual policy or group policies, are the premiums taxable as income to the employee (preacher)? Answer: No. This situation is just like General Motors, General Electric, Texaco, Ford, Inland Steel, or any other employer paying the premium for the brethren who are employees of these companies. If the church does pay all or part of the premium, the elders or someone approved in the business meeting must sign for the church on the application. Also, the premium must be paid on the church’s checking account. The church cannot make the check payable to the preacher and he in turn write a check to the insurance company!

Question. What benefits under a church-purchased plan are tax-free to the employee (preacher)? Answer: 1. Medical expenses. Any benefits received to pay the preacher’s medical expenses are tax-free. Benefits exceeding expenses are taxable income to the preacher it all attributable to the church’s premium. 2. Limb or eye loss. Benefits are tax-free if the preacher receives them as payment for the loss, or loss of use of any member or function of the body or for permanent disfigurement. These benefits apply only to the specific losses incurred. 3. Disability income. After the 30th day, all benefits are tax-free up to $100.00 a week. From the 8th to the 30th day, the benefits are tax-free up to $75.00 a week, if the benefits received are less than 75% of the employee’s regular weekly wage. If the employee is hospitalized for one day or more, this rule applies from the first day of disability.

Conclusion

The brethren frequently have employers providing these fringe benefits. There is nothing unscriptural in churches paying for these benefits for the preachers. Many heartaches, sleepless nights, and financial hardships could be avoided if elders saw that the preacher had an adequate insurance program.

(Editor’s Note: Although articles of the following kind seldom appear in Truth Magazine, the following article was prepared at my specific request so as to inform churches and preachers as to some specific benefits that may be applicable in their cases.. The article was prepared by an accountant, but is not offered as irrefutable tax advice by Truth Magazine. We assume no liability as to the accuracy of the tax court rulings on specific statements made herein. We recommend that you procure your own information from an accountant, tax consultant, or tax attorney. But, since the information in this article affects so many brethren, we thought its general circulation might be profitable.)

Truth Magazine XX: 46, p. 729
November 18, 1976

By Raymond E. Harris

History In The Making?

April 1975, Lauderdale County, Alabama may well be remembered in years to come as a significant starting point of “The Church Of Christ denomination.” At that time an event transpired that may be unparalleled in the history of the Church in this century. I personally do not know of any previous effort to join so many congregations together into one body to accomplish a work! There was no sponsoring church smoke screen. There was no effort to “Put it under an eldership.” Rather forty five institutional churches in Lauderdale County banded together and formed an organization officially known as “Lauderdale County Churches of Christ.” The organization had a publicly designated secretary treasurer and an associate treasurer. They received monies from local church treasuries and from individuals. They purchased newspaper space and TV time. They did business with an office supply and printing company and they made a substantial contribution ($3,629.15) to a non-religious political-civic organization. The organization secured the services of individuals to write and place “Paid political advertisements,” and to speak on television. Yes, all of the fore said activities were openly and publicly declared to be the work of “Lauderdale County Churches of Christ!”

By What Authority?

All God fearing, Bible respecting members of the Church of Christ must ask some questions. By what authority was this done? Was it scriptural? Obviously it was not scriptural! The only religious organization known to the New Testament is the local church. In Acts 14:23 we learn how Paul revisited the cities where he had converted people and helped them set their congregations in order by ordaining “Elders in every church.” Later when he wrote his letter to Philippi he addressed the letter to “All the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons” (Phil. 1:1). Each scripturally organized church is autonomous, independent, equal and sufficient. Each congregation is to be independent in its work and worship. God does not expect anything of any congregation that it cannot accomplish independent of all other churches. God has not commanded any work or activity by the universal church. Further, the “Lauderdale County Churches of Christ” could have no scriptural leadership, as elder’s authority is limited to the local church. Paul made such very clear as in Acts 20:28 he said, “Take heed therefore … to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers.” Later Peter concurred when he wrote, “Feed the flock of God which is among you.” Hence, the responsibility, work and authority of the elders begins and ends with the local congregation over which they serve as shepherds. Hence, the churches of the county, the state, the nation or the world are not authorized to band together and organize to do anything. It is obvious that in this matter these 45 individual churches relinquished part of their work, part of their money and their influence to the county organization, “Lauderdale County Churches of Christ.”

Also it is obvious that some individuals were quite presumptuous and brazen in this latest apostasy. What man or group of men has the right to form such an organization. Who has the authority to appoint a treasurer and call for church money to be put at his disposal? By what authority would one serve in such a capacity? Who has the authority to select advertisements, writers and TV speakers?

In the meantime where were the elders of these 45 churches? Don’t they know better than this? In this they relinquished their leadership, their authority and revealed the fact that they are either cowards or ignorant. Yes, they stand condemned one way or the other. If they are so ignorant of the scriptures that they did not know it is wrong to join their congregation to a county-wide organization, they are too unlearned to be elders. And if they knew better, but were afraid to stand up to gung-ho promotional preachers, they are too fearful and cowardly to be elders. Either way they prove themselves unqualified and unfit to elder. Truly with no more leadership than this in the local congregations of this county, it is easy to see why the institutional churches are well on their way to denominational status.

Nowhere in all the New Testament is there a command, example or inference that would authorize the tying or binding of local churches together. In fact when various things are bound together it changes their nature and status completely. To illustrate: (1) When iron links are hooked together they are no longer links, they are a chain. (2) When posts are hooked together they are no longer just posts, they become a fence. (3) When boxcars are hooked together they are no longer just boxcars, they are a train. And (4) when local churches are hooked together to form a larger organization, they are no longer local churches, they become a denomination!

Parallel Actions of the 1830’s

Since the early days of the restoration some have not been content with God’s simple way (the local congregation). Hence, they have longed to help God out by establishing larger and more far reaching organizations. Walter Scott as early as 1827 wrote in the Christian Messenger favoring conferences and cooperation meetings.

It was argued by those in favor of district, area and state organizations that most local congregations were too limited, especially financially, to do sustained and efficient work in carrying out the Lord’s work. They insisted that congregations through their messengers to the cooperation could pledge certain specified amounts to finance the preaching of the Gospel. The cooperations then could select evangelists and assure them their pay and authorize them to preach within a certain area. Organized efforts like this sprang up in Virginia in early 1831. A similar association was started in Illinois in 1834. Indiana had its first state meeting in 1839 and southern Kentucky churches organized in 1842. All this and more was done over the earnest protest of many brethren and without the first shred of New Testament authority. All such organization was defended soley on the basis of expediency and “the end justifies the means.” It was based on the false premise that the universal church has a responsibility and a work to do.

Final Fruits of Such Cooperation

Earl I. West in The Search For The Ancient Order, Vol. 1, pg. 155, observes: “Thus cooperation meetings were logical forerunners of the organizations and societies, both state and national, later to be found in the brotherhood. Any defense that could be made for them was the same that could be made for later Missionary and Bible Societies.” Brother West in the satue volume, pg. 159, shows that the fallacy of such action (and that of “Lauderdale County Churches of Christ”-REH) is the same that spawned the Roman Catholic Church and the many protestant synods and conferences. This was the idea that the church universal, as such, has specific work to do. I urge you to consider well the following statement from brother West’s book. “The church universal, as such, was not left with any specific work to do, but all work to be (lone was left up to the local congregations. Hence, in New Testament times, the only organization of Christians to exist was a local church. It is obvious, then, that the plan of the New Testament, by which the world was to be converted was the establishing of local churches in everv communitv of the world, and these local churches, in turn, under Christ, convert those within its reach. From Jerusalem to Judea, thence to Samaria and finally to the uttermost parts of the earth, churches were planted in New Testament times without the aid of any other organization than the local church, and souls were thus converted to Christ.

Ecclessiasticisms unknown to the church owe their origin directly or indirectly to beginning with the church universal. This has been carried to the farthest extreme in Roman Catholicism. Beginning with the consideration of the church uniNersal, they reasoned that an earthly pope must reign in the place of Christ. The apostles must have their successors, and so the bishops became this. On these two major assumptions, both starting with the concept of the church universal, Roman Catholicism has built its structure. The Synods, Conferences of Protestantism all have started from the same premise, but have not gone to the extreme of Romanism. For the brethren of a century ago to begin at this point and work toward general organizations was likewise to start on a false premise and in these concepts the differences arose.

However despite the warnings and pleadings of faithful brethren, in 1849 the American Christian Missionary Society was formed. This was followed rapidly by the use of instrumental music in worship in the 1850’s and the forming of the Christian Church by 1906. And now in our time a great part of the Christian Church has become identified as the Disciples of Christ., They have undergone what they called “restructure” and are now numbered with the denominations of the land. This very day they have their societies, (missionary, educational and benevolent) they have their instrumental music and they have their progressive streamlined, man made ways-but they have not God! Who wants to follow in such a way?

Where Do You Stand – Or Do You?

We call upon every member, every elder and every preacher in the church to think seriously about this matter! Where is the local church where you attend headed? Where are you headed? Each one is responsible for his own actions. Do we dare tag along with the majority where ever it goes and regardless what it does? Surely we have some that will still read and study God’s word and think for themselves. Is this generation void of the spirit of Lipscomb, Franklin and Lard?

Truth Magazine XX: 46, pp. 727-728
November 18, 1976