Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

The year 1974 should not be allowed to pass without notice of an important record which was set this year. An industrious, young writer has reached an important milestone in his teaching efforts. A milestone is a marker indicating what road one is traveling, how far he has gone on that road, and where the road leads.

Why should Christians care about noticing such things? Paul publicly dealt with the conduct of his brethren. He warned them publicly when they were on the wrong road, both for their sake and the sake of other brethren. Paul withstood Peter “to the face, because he was to be blamed”; and Paul did it “before them all” (Gal. 2:11-14). Because there are false doctrines, gospel preachers must “put the brethren in remembrance” of the things Paul and other inspired men wrote. “For in doing this thou shah both save thyself, and them that hear thee” (I Tim. 4:1-16).

Thus it is our responsibility not only to notice, but to expose and then rebuke all compromise of the gospel, whether the compromise be in conduct or direct teaching. One young brother rebuked the present writer for noticing, exposing, and rebuking another’s compromises. “If you loved him, you would not have done that to him.” Is love not supposed to criticize, oppose, and rebuke a brother? The example and directions of Paul already noticed are elaborated upon by James A. Harding in The Gospel Advocate of March 23, 1887, page one:

“A spirit of opposition, criticism and controversy is supposed to be unchristian and uncharitable. Though how any Bible reader could so conclude is a mystery to me, seeing that nearly all of the great Bible characters are grand and terrible iconoclasts.

Consider Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, John the immerser, Jesus and Paul. 1 mention these because they are among the best known of God’s great heroes, and because they were terrible and relentless in their opposition to all shams, to all perversions of the right way of the Lord …. Do you know that Paul lived a life of controversy, that his writings are nearly all controversial, and that these controversies were largely with mistaken, or false brethren . . . . What then is (‘) charity.’ It is love for God and man. What does it do? In the light of these great Bible characters it is not hard to answer this last question: With earnestness and fidelity it contends for God’s truth; with equal earnestness and fidelity it wars against that which is false and perverse of the right ways of the Lord. When a man begins to call for a truce In our war against sectarianism and sin, innovation and error, you may know that he has lost his charity (love) for God, and that he is about ready to act the Judas, and go over to the enemy.” (emphasis added, RH).

Harding’s words bring to mind again the events recounted in Gal. 2:11-14. Only Peter’s conduct was in question; not his teaching, yet Paul saw compromising conduct as extremely dangerous. He told Peter such conduct left a totally wrong impression; he tells us that others were being affected and that all of them were guilty of walking “not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel.” Language could hardly be stronger for such a “minor” offense.

All Peter did was temporarily separate himself from certain brethren while in the presence of other brethren whose favor he sought. Apparently after the visitors left, he would have resumed his former conduct. His public teaching had not changed at all. So, why make such a big thing of one small compromise? At least Paul could have whispered his rebuke in Peter’s ear when no one else was around, instead of embarrassing poor Peter “before them all”!

And, could not Paul have gotten the same job done without calling Peter’s name? Would not Paul’s approach offend Peter’s personal sense of self-esteem, causing him to reject the truth? Further, why could Paul not have taught us the truth on compromise without dragging Peter’s name before us, emphasizing “personalities,” even reiterating the poor brother’s name and using personal pronouns pointing directly to his name eleven times in just four verses?

Truth Or Consequences?

Paul is not very “tactful,” not vague at all, about the charge against Peter: dissimulation. “. . the Greek word means merely `playing a part,’ `making an incorrect impression,’ no matter in what particular way or with what particular motive the incorrect impression is made” (John H. Skilton (ed.), Machen’s Notes on Galatians, p. 138). With Peter, Barnabus, others in Antioch, and several from Jerusalem involved, “Surely such a situation demanded the utmost caution- one false move, and the Church would be split.’ No doubt such considerations might have been presented to Paul at Antioch …. But Paul did not think much of them …. He would have nothing whatever to do with the policy of concealment and compromise. What he did do is presented in sharp, clear fashion in his own words. `But when I saw,’ he says, ‘that they were not walking straight according to the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of them all . . . .” (Ibid., p. 139).

Paul had his eyes first on the Lord and divine truth, not on the consequences of stating the truth. and fighting error. Paul did not lick his finger and test the wind, take a poll of the brethren’s current feelings on the subject, nor simply add Peter’s minor vacillation in conduct to the list of “86 Issues Upon Which Good Brethren Differ.”

“Peter’s conduct was not in accordance with the gospel. That was enough for Paul. Regardless of the consequences, he was obliged to speak out. He withstood Peter to his face; he rebuked him before them all.

(Today) These ostensibly evangelical leaders consider the, consequences; Paul considered truth” (Ibid., p. 139).

Paul charged Peter as guilty of the consequences his compromising conduct led to in others. He charged him with the results of his example and influence. Is this fair? Is a man responsible for the unforeseen consequences of his conduct and teaching?

“. . . Peter was -compelling’ the Gentiles to Judaize. The compulsion referred to was not physical compulsion; and it was not even the compulsion of any definite command or advice. Rather it was the compulsion which Peter was exerting by his example (Ibid., p. 142).

Instead of compromising, Peter himself should have rebuked his visiting brethren. He left one impression while in their presence. He left another impression while in the presence of others. Clearly, “he was to be blamed.” When he failed to do his job as a faithful evangelist and apostle, it fell Paul’s lot to notice, expose, and rebuke.

Decade of Disgraceful Compromise

Therefore we make no apology for pointing out that as of 1974, Brother Edward Fudge has reached a milestone in compromising conduct (not to mention a good deal of direct false teaching). We do feel pain and genuine sorrow; also, we are ashamed that such a thing must be named among us.

On April 30, 1964, Ed’s first article in the Gospel Guardian appeared. All that time, especially of late, he has left the impression that regarding the function of the church he stands opposed to institutionalism of all forms, centralization of every brand, and social gospel practices of all sorts. On September 12, 1964, Ed’s first article in the Christian Standard appeared. The Christian Standard has been published since 1866 by members of the Christian Church denomination promoting and defending institutionalism, centralization, and social gospel practices. Yet not one word of opposition to these things has been written by Brother Fudge in the Christian Standard in all these ten years!!! Thus he leaves the impression with hundreds and thousands of members of the Christian Church denomination that they are not lost in these sins.

The nearest Brother Fudge came to saying what the Christian Standard readers need to hear on instrumental music appeared . . . in the Firm Foundation (“A Case Against Instrumental Music in Christian Worship,” June 15, 1971). An introductory note said, “I have a curious theory that in religious controversies the most good is usually accomplished by speaking as directly as possible to those holding opposing views.” (When it comes to the grace-unity-fellowship controversy, he certainly has a curious way of putting this “curious theory” into practice! He ignores his opponents and takes as little notice of their arguments and questions as is possible.) “With this in mind,” he sent this article to editor E. V. Hayden of the Christian Standard, but said editor “chose not to print it . . . .”

Notice brethren, especially those who think a few little misprints or slips of the pen have been twisted to conduct a personal vendetta against an innocent bystander. The Christian Standard has stood for compromise since its inception over a hundred years ago. “The Standard was established in 1866 by a coalition of moderate and liberal churchmen who were deeply dissatisfied with the policy of the American Christian Review. They aimed to ‘counteract the influence’ of Benjamin Franklin,” who early fought instrumental music in worship and then later came out against the missionary societies, institutionalism, and all forms of centralization among churches. (David Edwin Harrell, Jr., The Social Sources of Division in the Disciples of Christ 1865-1900, p. 18.). Editor Isaac Errett “was perfectly fitted to lead the moderate assault on Benjamin Franklin;” he “worked hand in hand” with other compromisers, like James H. Garrison, in shielding “the young liberals of the late nineteenth century” (Ibid., pp. 19-20). Like the Gospel Advocate of today, the Standard later tried to slow down the most radical progress of the most radical liberalism, but compromisers are never the men for such work. Not only did the Standard take a compromising stand on instruments in worship, it, “was the one journal which may fairly be said to have saved the principle of church cooperation through societies for the Disciples of Christ . . . . In March, 1867, Isaac Errett could say of the Standard, ‘It is the only weekly among us that advocates organized effort for missionary purposes.’

. .. . . More than to any other journal and person, it was to the Christian Standard and Isaac Errett that the Disciples were indebted for being saved from becoming a fissiparous sect of jangling legalists” (W. E. Garrison and A. T. DeGrott, The Disciples of Christ, pp. 356-358).

In other words, liberal Disciples’ spokesmen a hundred years later recognize the compromising influence of the Standard as the key which unlocked the door through which ultra-liberalism would come within a couple of generations. Though the Standard did not approve that ultra liberalism when it came, the Standard has continued FOR OVER A HUNDRED YEARS to represent the entrenched spirit of compromise on the distinctive nature of the church.

Brother Fudge’s decade of writing in the Standard is about like going to preach at a Methodist Church which has an established policy of not allowing the truth on sprinkling to be preached-or to a Baptist Church with such a policy on the purpose of baptism-or to a Catholic Church with the same policy on the Pope. Brother Fudge admits the Standard refuses to let him speak in opposition to the instrument, yet goes on writing for them. Since when did faithful preachers begin to agree to preach in situations where they positively could not speak the truth on the very subject the people needed.

By the way, Brother Fudge claimed in Athens, Alabama, October 7, 1973, that though he could not use 1 Cor. 1:10, Gal. 1:8-9, 2 Jn. 9, or Jude 3 in opposition to instrumental music and other innovations, he could use Romans 12:1-2. Yet his most recent article in the Christian Standard is a discussion of Romans 12:1-2 entitled “Check-points of Our Religion.” He talks about Response, Change, and Confidence. He says “our religion is basically positive,” but does “include negative elements.” We love our wife and leave off some things for her with joy. Etc., etc., etc. But he never mentioned what the Standard audience needs to hear, never applied the passage against innovations, never indicated that one of the negative things we do if we love God is leave off such things as instruments in worship. All of which makes his Athens argument very unconvincing.

While we are at it, we might point out that in recent times the Firm Foundation has come to represent the same spirit of compromise. It is edited by the two tongued, double-talking, champion compromiser Revel Lemmons. Brother Fudge has written a bushel-basketful of articles for the Firm Foundation. Between May 16, 1967, and June 25, 974, he has written about thirty articles for them and in just three more years will mark a decade of service to them. We want to be the first to nominate him for editor when Brother Lemmons retires from the field of literary compromise. Brother Fudge never has told these brethren what they need to hear most; the closest he came was in telling them that publishing houses, papers, and other institutions must be used wisely-and that’s not very close (Sept. 25, 1973, “Human Institutions: A Reminder”).

Atmosphere of Journalistic Compromise Developing

Brother Fudge is contributing to an atmosphere in which more and more journalistic compromise will occur. Gordon Wilson (St. Louis, Mo.), who has been an associate editor of Gospel Guardian, is now trying his hand at it. He had three articles in the Christian Standard in the first five months of this year (Jan. 6, Mar. 24, May 5). “The Gospel Demands Change” by Wilson was the featured “Bible-school lesson for May 12,” but never a word is said about the gospel demanding change in regard to instrumental music, institutionalism, and social-gospel practices. We are saddened to see a young man just out of college moving into this pattern. Wayne McDaniel (Cottonwood, Ariz.), who has written several pieces for Gospel Guardian, has begun writing for both the Standard and Foundation, with not a word on their innovations.

How are these brethren tolerating and fellowshipping. error? By teaching some truth, but omitting the very truth needed most by those in some particular error. A failure to teach the whole counsel of God is compromise. When one allows his name, writings, and influence to serve mediums of error (Christian Standard, Firm Foundation), he contributes to a false sense of confidence among the erring. Such conduct hides under the cover of love, but is not true love. We are ashamed to have to cry out against such conduct, but not ashamed to do it. We offer no apology. We simply plead with brethren to wake up.

Truth Magazine XVIII: 2, pp. 26-28
November 14, 1974

By James W Adams

(EDITORS NOTE: The following article constitutes one of the brief chapters in a new book published by Biblical Research Press of Abilene, Texas. J. D. Thomas is the Editor, and I presume the owner of Biblical Research Press. The first books were received by me on October 10, 1974. So it is a brand new publication! In his Introduction, Brother Thomas said: “. . . we have asked forty-seven men to briefly state their views on what the brotherhood lacks–what they feel could be improved upon and which would give great aid to the progress of the Cause of Christ. We chose these men from among leaders all across the spectrum of Brotherhood thought-from `liberal’ to conservative’ and from `left’ to definite `right.’ Each of these men is influential within his own sphere and is looked upon as a leader.”

The title of the book is WHAT LACK WE YET? It is nicely printed and case bound, with an attractive jacket, and consists of 319 pages. brother James W. Adams and I were asked to write a chapter each in the book. Though Brother Thomas makes no attempt to classify particular men. I suspect that he would classify Brother Adams and me as the most “conservative” and “definite `right’ ” of those men chosen to write chapters. Having just received the book, I must confess that 1 have not read it entirely, as yet. However, I suspect that many brethren would find some interesting reading in this book. No price is published in the copies I received, but I have been informed that the price is $7.95. If you want a copy, we will stock some in the Bookstore. I felt readers of TRUTH MAGAZINE might want to read what Brother Adams and I had to say in this book. My article appeared in the October 31st issue. You will also find some “way-out” stuff in it, but those who want to keep informed on what is occurring among us will most likely want to read this book.-Cecil Willis

“Who is left among you that saw this house in her first glory? and how do ye see it now? is it not in your eyes in comparison of it as nothing” (Haggai 2:3)?

A careful study of the book of Ezra will reveal that the Lord had stirred up Cyrus, king of Persia, to release the Jews from captivity that they might return to Judea and build again the house of God which Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed. They returned to Judea and laid the foundation of the house of God, but because of opposition, they ceased their labors. Fourteen years passed, and the opposition ceased, but they had not gone back to work on the house of God. In the meantime, they had built themselves houses in which to live in comfort while “the house of God lay waste.” Haggai was sent by God to rebuke the Jews for their conduct and to call them back to the task appointed of God; namely, the restoration of His house. It was in connection with these events that the prophet raised the questions of our text which suggest the title of this article.

Some were still living who had seen Solomon’s temple in all its glory, hence were greatly discouraged with the restoration efforts. Their altered circumstances made it impossible for them to rebuild as glorious a house as the original. Haggai took note of this fact and encouraged them with the assurance that the Lord was with them in their faithful efforts at restoration. “Be strong, O Zerrubabel, saith the Lord; and be strong, O Joshua, son of Josedech; and be strong, all ye people of the land, saith the Lord, and work: for I am with you, saith the Lord of hosts” (Haggai 2:4).

A Pertinent Analogy

The situation of professed churches of Christ today is analogous to the condition that obtained among the Jews of our text. The New Testament contains much teaching concerning the church of our Lord under the figure of a temple-the temple of God (Eph. 2:19-22; 1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 1 Pet. 2:4,5). The original,, spiritual temple of (god (the church) was laid waste by apostasy beginning near the close of the apostolic age and maturing by the middle of the seventh century. During his lifetime, Paul warned that such would occur (Acts 20:28-31; 2 Thess. 1:1-12). This state of apostasy continued for more than twelve hundred years. Its bleakest hours were probably during the Middle Ages. The Renaissance, followed by the Reformation dispelled engulfing clouds of ignorance, oppression, and religious error creating a situation in which serious efforts at religious “restoration” could be launched. Freedom from Roman Catholic tyranny, however, gave birth to the licentious forming of multitudes of human denominations. Each denomination emerged as an effort either to revive some aspect of New Testament teaching or practice which was lost in the great apostasy or to champion some doctrine or practice which was the direct consequence of rebellion against or overreaction to Roman Catholic error. Many of these doctrines and practices were equally as fallacious as the error which produced them. It is the nature of men to swing from one extreme to the other.

Out of this state of denominational chaos came the plea for “a restoration of the ancient order of things”-a plea for a return to the faith and practice of the apostolic church. In America particularly, this plea fell upon receptive ears and crystallized in a movement to make it a practical reality, familiar to members of churches of Christ as “The Restoration Movement.” Present day churches of Christ, whether they care to admit it or not (and I blush not to do so), are the direct descendants historically from this movement, hence they rest squarely on “the restoration principle”-the principle exemplified by the Jews of our text. The validity of the principle is seen in the fact that it was in obedience to a direct command of Jehovah that the Jews rebuilt the house of God and restored the practice of the law of Moses.

“The Restoration Principle”

The above being true, I agree with Dr. Alfred T. DeGroot that churches of Christ “will live or die, prosper or decline, in accordance with what they think and do about the restoration principle” (The Restoration Principle, The Bethany Press, 1960, p. 7). Dr. DeGroot, distinguished college professor and preacher among “The Disciples of Christ,” repudiates “Legalistic primitivism or restorationism.” He believes that such has “stunted the spiritual development” of many professed restoration movements in history. He, insists that “a restoration movement in the church or elsewhere can never wholly reconstitute the exact conditions of life that formerly obtained or the original structure of an organization within that life” (Op. cit., pp. 7, 165). DeGroot’s “restoration principle” stated simply is a restoration of the spirit of New Testament Christianity rather than its form. In this connection, DeGroot lists six attributes of the spirit which should be restored in professed believers today. It will suffice to say for the purposes of this article that DeGroot represents the most liberal element among so-called “Disciples of Christ” who, since the writing of his book, have formally constituted themselves a human denomination and have joined the mainstream of liberal “Christendom.”

I believe with DeGroot that the attitude professed “churches of Christ” assume with reference to “the restoration principle” will determine their future. I do not agree with what he conceives “the restoration principle” to be. It is my conviction that no informed and honest person among the brethren will deny that the various attitudes which are extant today among us toward said “restoration principle” are directly responsible for most of the schisms and open divisions (parties) that harass us. Therefore, it should be evident to all that the crying need of our time is for us to come to a meeting of the minds relative to what the absolutely essential elements of “the house of God” (spiritual) as originally constituted by its Divine builder (Mt. 16:18) were in order that we may form proper judgments as to how far we have digressed therefrom, hence what needs to be rebuilt or restored.

Though the rebuilt temple of God in Jerusalem obviously did not possess the same glory as its original, it is clear from Haggai’s statements that Jehovah was pleased with the work done and gave the Jews assurance of His continued presence and blessing. Therefore, the essential features of the original house of God must have been restored. It is not difficult to accept the fact that twentieth century Christians might not be able to restore certain aspects of the apostolic church and her practice which contributed to her original glory (This is particularly so of the miraculous manifestations.) but we can restore her essentials as to form, teaching, worship, and work. To me, it is axiomatic that whatever was absolutely essential to the existence and acceptability of a church of the Lord in the first century is essential to the existence and acceptability to God of a church of Christ in the twentieth century. If not, why not?

Proper Motivation

“Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life” (Prov. 4:23). Where opposing concepts and consequent division exist among brethren, proper motivation is basic to any hope for peace and unity. Dissident groups must approach a consideration of the issues which divide them with intellectual honesty and objective moderation. This is often easier said than done. Passion and self-interest too often rule in such matters. Joined with these qualities must be sincere love for God, for truth, and for one another. “Love covers a multitude of sins” (1 Pet. 4:8). Yet, it must be recognized that proper motivation is but a first step. Particularly is this true when the issues which divide are intellectually rather than emotionally rooted.

A Proper Standard of Authority

Theoretically and traditionally, modern churches of Christ are committed to the necessity of having Divine authority for religious faith and practice and to the teaching of the New Testament as constituting the allsufficient standard of that authority. However, this can no longer be taken for granted. Many among professed churches of Christ today believe that the Scriptures contain the truth but that not all things therein are true. Others, while accepting all things in the Scriptures as true, do not believe that we must have authority from Scripture for all that we believe and practice in religion. Particularly, do they believe this to be true in so-called “areas of silence.” This suggests two things which I conceive to constitute a “lack” among churches of Christ today: (1) We must come to an agreement as to whether we are right or wrong in contending for the necessity of authority from scripture for every item of faith and l or practice in religion (This has been our plea; snau n continue to be?); and (2) we must develop a sound hermeneutics acceptable to all by means of which we may determine what is and what is not authorized by the Scriptures. The first of these is basic but easier of solution. The second involves the problem facing the great majority of the brethren and it is much more difficult of solution.

A Sound Hermeneutics

Though we accept the fact of the necessity for scriptural authority for religious faith and practice, this is meaningless if we cannot agree on a system of hermeneutics by means of which we can determine what the Scriptures do or do not authorize. Hermeneutics is the science of Biblical interpretation. Its province is to formulate rules by means of which the meaning of Scripture may be determined. Exegesis is the art of applying the rules of hermeneutics to specific passages of Scripture and determining their meaning. Hermeneutics always precedes exegesis. Application is the practical use of Divine principles (ascertained from Scripture by hermeneutics and exegesis) in determining whether any given item of faith or practice is or is not authorized by the Scriptures.

The thing most lacking in our time is a sound system of hermeneutics universally recognized by the brethren. Exegesis and application will be fairly simple if we can ever settle the matter of hermeneutics. I suggest, therefore, that the best minds and the most informed Bible students among all elements among professed churches of Christ should concentrate on this problem. Some work has been done and some progress made, but it is my conviction that the last word has not been said.

Truth Magazine XVIII: 3, pp. 43-44
November 21, 1974

By Larry Ray Hafley

Well, have you ever thought about it? Students are out of school. Several are off work on Saturday morning. So, why not plan a Saturday morning service during your gospel meetings?

Very few churches conduct morning services during the week for various reasons. (Or should I say, in some cases, “excuses?”) But how many churches are there that could not profitably plan a Saturday morning assembly during their regular gospel meeting? Surely, most places would have enough who could be present to make it worth the time and effort. Carting a preacher several hundred miles should cause us to want to milk him for all the word of God we can squeeze out of him, and a Saturday morning service gives one more opportunity to profit from his preaching.

No, I am not trying to run your gospel meeting schedule for you. I just thought this might be an idea that would be worthy of consideration. What do you say?

Truth Magazine XVIII: 1, p. 14
November 7, 1974

By Norman E. Fultz

Several years ago, an article entitled “The Preacher Asks For A Raise” made the rounds in church bulletins. It began immediately to explain that a raise in finances was not meant, but rather a raise in attendance, interest, etc. But this present article is talking about a raise in finances, for very likely indeed your preacher will need a raise in income this year.

Through the years we preachers have had a real reluctance to talk about our finances, and in many instances the ignorance of the brethren relative to preacher support is because of our reticence to inform them. Most preachers had rather switch locations than ask for a raise, and in too many instances the brethren have not been far sighted or business like enough to provide the raise without his asking. There has generally been reflected on the part of brethren what appears to be a fear the preacher may be too well supported, that he might not be able to handle a really livable wage. Brethren, I want to share a few thoughts whose time have come.

We surely already know the scripturalness of financially supporting the preaching of the gospel. But in case some may be unable to recall such, let’s allow Paul’s arguments to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 9:4-14), his statement of receipt of wages (2 Cor. 11:8), and his commendation of the Philippians (Phil. 1:5; 4:15-18) for their support, to suffice.

There are a number of factors which good judgment demands must be considered in the support of a preacher. To some extent, the size and ability of the congregation are factors; yet groceries, housing, clothing, utilities, gasoline, car payments and other expenses of the preacher are not priced to him and his family according to the size of the church with which he works. Those items cost him just the same as they do the preacher who works with a church on the other side of town which is twice the size and whose support may be twice as much. Nor does it follow that the preacher working with the small group is necessarily doing less work than he with a large church, and therefore should receive less. If the congregation cannot afford adequately to support him, perhaps he could receive additional support from another church until local ability increases, though I have known of instances where the church considered it a blow to their pride to even think such. In some cases, the preacher may take secular work to augment his income; and I do not think a preacher ought to consider himself too good to do just that when necessary. And some preachers who do have very good support need to learn a little more charity and to be less critical toward those who find it necessary to “make tents” on the side.

But our primary thought here is the need for brethren to keep the support adequate with an occasional raise to offset increasing costs. Many labor for the same wage for years. To illustrate: I personally worked with one congregation four and a half years and was receiving the same when I left as when I began, and it was not <t tub of butter. In fact, when my wife took a job for a while, the elders stopped our house rent and we had to pay it. We moved to another work for $15 less weekly because I thought living costs would be much less in that area (They were not.) and because of the inability of the church and the prospects for a good work. During the two and a half years of fruitful work there, the financial ends never did meet, but in order to at least get them a little closer together, I often went out and sold a few Dickson Bibles. I then got an increase in support by moving to another work where the support was almost exactly the same as I had received in the prior location. I am sure many preachers could recite similar experiences. Brethren, just those moving costs turned to preacher support might save a lot of unnecessary moving and ease some preachers’ financial strain.

The preacher carries a financial load most people in public work do not appreciate. An article in The Commercial Appeal (August 28, 1973), reported that fringe benefits paid to employees average 25 per cent of their wage and in one group it was 41 per cent. These fringes are in the form of life and health insurance, retirement programs, profit sharing, etc. The preacher pays his own hospitalization which costs about one-third more than group insurance and gives him far less benefits. He pays his own life insurance, and he usually has no employer paying half his social security, nor contributing dollar for dollar into a profit sharing fund, nor giving him a nice year-end bonus. And remember that the preacher’s check is his gross and that is the amount most compare with their own net income.

Social security is a big expenditure for the preacher as a self-employed person and is getting bigger each year. For 1973 the rate was 8 per cent on a maximum of $10,800. The rate for 1974 is 8 per cent on $13,200. And remember that the preacher has to pay social security on the fair rental value of that house provided him in those cases where churches own the house in which he lives. In recent years, I have heard of a few churches that help the preacher with his social security at year’s end.

The preacher has the same increased costs of living as do those whose contract provides for an automatic cost of living raise or whose employer is knowledgeable and appreciative enough to give his employees a raise, but the preacher generally does not get a systematic increase. A very recent news article reported an 8.8 per cent increase in cost of living last year. And it said that it cost a person with a $12,000 income last year about 51,168 more to live than the year before. Well, there may not be a lot of $12,000 a year preachers, but their costs would be proportionate.

Most preachers have a good deal of driving to do. Increases in gasoline costs will hit hard whether for local work or in driving to gospel meetings across country. So, brethren, that standard amount you have been supporting a man in a meeting for the past several years has diminished in size. Especially would I encourage consideration for those preaching brethren who devote most all their time to gospel meeting work and whose travel expenses are therefore monumental.

Yes, brethren, your preacher will need a raise this year in all probability. May I encourage an objective, businesslike consideration of the matter of preacher support with a view to making it possible for him to do the work without having constantly to worry about finances?

Truth Magazine XVIII: 1, pp. 13-14
November 7, 1974