Truth Magazine

By Tom Wheeler

It is a good time for me to say some things on this subject as I just recently moved and no one could think I am asking for a raise yet.

Brethren have mistreated many preachers by their stinginess. They and their families have done without necessities in order for them to preach the gospel of Christ. Many have not received the help of their wives (which they needed so much) because the wife had to work to make ends meet. (She often had to work even with young children at home.) By the way, the wife often after just a few weeks or months was making more than her husband, causing the same inferior feeling in him that it would cause in any other husband. Some few preachers have been unable to pay their bills and left owing businesses and individuals. I am not upholding the person and his unpaid bills but neither should the brethren complain too much about paying them for if they had given the preacher a decent wage, he would have taken care of them before leaving town.

Some brethren still think whatever the preacher gets is charity or that he should not be paid any more than necessary to live on. Paul called what he received “wages:” “I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service.” (2 Cor. 11:8) A friend, when asked what he would have to have to move to a certain place, stated a figure. After they regained their composure, they asked him again what he would have to have. He proposed that they go ahead and pay him the figure stated and at the end of each month each family would work up a cost sheet and give everything left over to the church. This is in reality what they were asking him to do. Paul called it “wages,” not charity, or a love offering.

There are some things most brethren do not consider when deciding how much the preacher will be paid. He buys his own health insurance and if he has a fair policy, it will cost him as much as a reasonable car payment. I have never heard of but one congregation that had a life policy on the preacher and that one is payable to the church, not to the preacher’s family. The preacher will have more car and clothing expenses than the average person, and if it were otherwise the brethren would not have him. 89% of all companies have a retirement or pension plan, but if a preacher needs help in his old age you just listen to the brethren talk about what a sorry manager he was. The following figures are from U. S. News And World Report, August 28, 1972. In 1971 the average (that includes low income states) employee in private industry received $2,544.00 in fringe benefits per year. These are things that never showed up on the paycheck. There has been a big jump since then.

I do not believe preaching is on the same level with secular work; if I thought such I would have stayed in private industry. I do not believe preachers should form unions; in fact I would not listen to one who advocated such a thing. I do believe they (preachers) ought to sacrifice to exercise any talent they have. When you read in the New Testament of gospel preaching being supported, the preacher was not the only one who sacrificed. This would indeed by an enlightening study for many brethren.

Some brethren think that if they furnish a house, they are doing the preacher a great favor. Really they are only helping him never to accumulate a place to live when he is too feeble to preach.

A preacher ought not to have to beg or move for a raise. Sometimes brethren can not understand why a preacher moved after only two or three years when things were going so well. They did not stop to think that the cost of living went up 20% or more during that time and they gave him only a $10.00 or $20.00 raise, which in fact was not a raise at all, as it did not even keep up with the cost of living. Preachers are accused of preaching for money, when the charge is false. Why could not the additional wages paid by a different congregation indicate a greater appreciation for his services? I believe the “wages” must be within reason, as the last paragraph will indicate.

There is a saying among preachers that ought not to be. “Get it when you are making the agreement to move, for you won’t get it after you are there.” This statement covers a lot of things: “wages,” office (preferably study) furniture, printing equipment, number of weeks away for meetings and length of vacation. Vacation time is a sore spot with some preachers. When one works for private industry a certain number of years, he usually gets more vacation time. When preachers change congregations, the brethren think they change companies. By the way, many preachers preach and study while on their vacation.

Several years ago, a preacher went to a place to consider moving there. They asked him what he wanted them to pay him. He noted that ten men were present and proposed that they average their incomes and pay him that amount. Their incomes averaged $90.00 per week (I suppose that was take home); they payed him $70.00. Brethren in some places have come a long way in the last few years and some progress is being made in other places. Preacher pay is still a touchy subject and many do not know how to deal with it. “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” (Matt. 7:12) Why would not this teaching hold true in the matters under discussion? I am persuaded that one reason many parents do not encourage their boys to preach is they do not want their son treated (payed) like they treat (pay) the preacher.

Preachers have moved just to teach the elders and/or the men who run the affairs a lesson in preacher support. Whether right or wrong, this does take place. This can create an unnecessary, bad situation. He moves before he wants to. He moves before his family wants to. He moves before the church really wants him to, and some people are hurt and discouraged. Brethren, this ought not to be. Review the salary every few months. Discuss it with the preacher. Pray about the matter and treat one another like fellow children of God and much unnecessary expense will be saved in the long run.

Before we close the article, let us mention a few things on the other side of the economic scale. I believe that some preachers are asking for and getting too much “wages.” They are taking advantage of a preacher shortage and are becoming hirelings, preaching for filthy lucre. If you ask me for a figure that is precisely the correct amount, I cannot give it. That depends on the area, the people and the preacher and his family. Some will leave the church when some salaries that I have heard quoted are paid. Can some sleep with that? When one receives more than a reasonable amount, he will lose his effectiveness as a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Read again Matt. 7:12.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:45, p. 12-13
September 19, 1974

By Bruce Edwards, Jr.

“The church described in the New Testament was not a denomination.” We understand that sentence. We have heard it all our lives. We mouth it to friends and to neighbors. We courageously affirm it before fellow Christians. We are thoroughly and categorically convinced that it is true. But do we fully realize the implications of this deceptively simple group of words?

It implies that the Lord’s people are not denominationally organized. Search the Scriptures, up and down, and you will find that in the first century there was no “national headquarters” (no, not even in Jerusalem) for the church. You will find no centralization of funds. You will find no “Sunday School boards.” You will find no institutionalism whatsoever. In fact, you must conclude that each congregation was independent and autonomous, fully capable of handling its own evangelism and edification, including discipline, free of outside intimidation or influence.

It implies that the Lord’s people are not subject to denominational leadership. Each local church was Scripturally led when there were a plurality of elders and deacons present. There was no clergy-laity caste system. All were “ministers.” All were individually responsible for teaching and preaching the gospel. No one was permitted or encouraged to allow “the minister” to do the evangelistic work for them in that location. There were no “lay-ministers,” no “arch-bishops,” no “cardinals,” no “presidents,” and no “reverends” in the first century church. In fact, you must conclude that each and every Christian was on an equal basis before God, each with his own responsibility to teach the word.

It implies that the Lord’s people are not guided by nor subject to denominational creeds. All beliefs and practices of the early church were founded upon the word of God. You will find among them no appeals to The Book of Mormon, The Westminster Confession of Faith, The Plain Truth magazine, Calvin’s Institutes, Mary Baker Eddy’s Science and Health, the Methodist Discipline, nor anything else to establish Divine authority. In fact, you must conclude that each Christian was individually answerable only to God and was eminently capable of understanding and practicing God’s will on the basis of his own judgment free of “official creeds,” “papal encyclicals,” or “brotherhood editorials.”

It implies that the Lord’s people do not possess a denominational name. The church in the New Testament is labeled variously as, “the saints,” “the brethren,” “the church of God,” “the kingdom of heaven,” etc. There was no attempt on the part of the early Christians to set themselves apart in a denominational way by “name.” In fact, you must conclude that they met in synagogues or buildings they did not own or private homes, and worried little about the “proper designation” that may have hung on the front door. What “names” that were employed identified them merely as God’s people, set apart unto His Son, “names” given by the Lord Himself, free of any attempts to glorify any particular man, doctrine, or practice.

It implies that the Lord’s people are to dwell in unity. The very term “denomination” implies division. Any attempt to justify divisive groups, each proclaiming allegiance to a peculiar theologian or theology, from a Biblical standpoint is futile. The very idea that God could ordain and approve of all of today’s “roads to heaven” is in itself ludicrous. In fact, you must conclude that the early Christians were united in Christ through His word denying any sectarian or denominational concepts or beliefs.

The comment, “the church described in the New Testament was not a denomination,” is often made casually, almost nonchalantly. In reality, it is the most profound truth that confronts “modern Christendom.” Let us not mouth these words as an empty slogan or catch-phrase; rather let us drink deep its significance, letting it influence our thinking and application in our approaches to His service. Christ’s church, His ekklesia, is not a denomination! What wonderful freedom this truth brings!

Truth Magazine, XVIII:45, p. 9
September 19, 1974

By Steve Wolfgang

(Editor’s Note: The following remarks could as fittingly be applied to the editor of any of the other journals who speak as the divine oracles speak. With the great admiration which I have for the long deceased Benjamin Franklin, I would feel much more comfortable if you were to read the following article with him only in mind, without any reference to the editor of this paper. If one can have favor with God, it matters not whether he has the praise of men, or their recriminations.-Cecil Willis)

Recently, while researching some back files of Benjamin Franklin’s American Christian Review,1 we came across an article printed nearly a hundred years ago,2 over the pseudonym “Evangelist.”3 Seeing many possible applications to some current situations, we have reproduced the article (in edited and abridged form) below. While some of the circumstances then and now differ (the article was occasioned by Franklin’s death on October 23, 1878), and while we certainly do not foresee for “the current editor” of Truth Magazine an end similar to that of Franklin’s successor, John F. Rowe (years later, Rowe acquiesced to the use in the worship of “a small organ,” but not, “O ye gods,” said he, a large one!),4 yet some of the comments of a young “Evangelist” are as appropriate now as they were then.

“Critics, sharpen your pens; he is a good subject to work on. . . . Measure him by your own various. and variable standards, and you will find him defective all over; measure him by the Divine word, and you will pronounce him a fair specimen. Cull out his unhandsome expressions and harp upon his mistakes, and you will probably have something to do; meditate upon the excellent in what he writes, and you will have but little time for that other ungenerous business. Assume prophetic afflatus and predict the downfall of (Truth Magazine), and you will injure that which you cannot destroy; utter not all your mind, but keep it until afterward, or, better still, increase the circulation of (Truth Magazine) and you will perform a nobler part.

“Editors and scribes of other journals, I invite your special attention. Here is a rare chance for you. (Cecil Willis) is not wiser than Solomon, nor meeker than Moses, nor patienter than Job, and even if he be, I will tell you how to treat him so as to make him appear at a disadvantage. Get up some side issue . . ., advocate some unscriptural or antiscriptural enterprise, or do some other un-apostolic thing, and he will oppose it just as certain as you live. Then regard him as ‘a hindrance to the cause’ and not entitled to fair treatment. Do not PREsent to your readers what he may say, but REPresent it. Or, pass over his premises and present his conclusions by themselves. Comment thereon in your severest style and make him appear as unhandsome as possible. Unless he detect in this the devil’s trap for him, though set by good men, he will say (and all know he can say) some severe things. Then quote against him the severest of the severe, publish them to your readers, refusing to let him be fully heard, while representing him as scurrilous and unscrupulous…. On the other hand, treat him fairly and the merit of his pen will, at least, command the respect of those whose affections it may not win. As for my own part, I fully purpose to increase his number of readers whenever I can, and assist in filling his columns with the clearest, concisest, soundest articles which my youthful pen can produce.”

“EVANGELIST”

Footnotes

1. Historian David Edwin Harrell, Jr., has said that during Franklin’s maturity, “the most influential Disciples journal was the American Christian Review, edited by Benjamin Franklin” The Social Sources of Division in the Disciples of Christ, 1865-1900: A Social History of the Disciples of Christ, Volume II (Atlanta: Publishing Systems, Incorporated, 1973), p. 17.

2. The actual date was November 26, 1878 (American Christian Review, 21:48, p. 377).

3. “Evangelist” was one of the pen names used by Daniel Sommer, then 28 years old.

4. See Earl Irvin West, The Search for the Ancient Order: A History of the Restoration Movement, 1849-1906 (Volume 11, 1866-1906; Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1954), p. 315.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:45, p. 7-8
September 19, 1974

By Jeffery Kingry

There are few examples in the Scriptures when the Lord displayed anger while on this earth, but it is interesting when we note the occasions he did show displeasure.

(1) “And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand. And they watched him whether he would heal him on the Sabbath day; that they might accuse him. And he said to the man which had the withered hand, >Stand forth!’ And he said unto them, >Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath days, or to do evil? To save life or to kill?’ But they held their peace. And when he had looked round about on them in anger, being grieved for their hardness of heart, he saith to the man, `Stretch forth thy hand.’ And he stretched forth his hand and it was restored whole as the other” (Mark 3:1-5).

(2) “And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them; and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them `Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God'” (Mark 10:13,14).

(3) “Jesus went up to the temple and found those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of the money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep and the oxen; and poured out the changer’s money, and overthrew the tables; and said unto them that sold doves, `Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise!’ And his disciples remembered that it was written: `The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up'” (Jno. 2:12-17).

Man Or The Sabbath?

Jesus was able to deal with most injustice and ignorance with patience and longsuffering. What is it that so moved the Lord to anger in these three instances? Do they all have something in common?

In the healing of the cripple Jesus was angered at the Jews for putting observance of ritual over real service to a fellow man. The learned Rabbis held the “common people” in great contempt. Jesus saw each soul, regardless of his ability, education, or background as a person worth more than all the riches of the world (Matt. 16:26). Jesus came to “heal those who are sick,” and ate with publicans and sinners. When he preached, he invited such to draw near unto him. To the pious Pharisee and scribe, this kind of behaviour drew contempt that later changed to malice.

But beyond their contempt for the humility of Jesus, they held him guilty for presuming to lay aside their orthodoxy for the petty needs of one of these “common people.” On the Sabbath day all work was forbidden (Ex. 20:8-11). But the Jews had determined that healing was work. According to Barclay, “Medical attention could be given only if a life was in danger. To take some examples – a woman in childbirth might be helped on the Sabbath. An affection of the throat might be treated. But, a fracture could not be attended to. Cold water could not be poured on a sprain. A cut finger might be bandaged, but no ointment could be put on it” (Mark, D.S.B., p. 62).

The Jews did not see the Sabbath as a servant of man, but man as a servant of the Sabbath. Jesus had previously shown that the needs of man came before any ritual law (Mk. 2:2428). Jesus was angry because of the rigid way in which these Jews sought to please God by putting a system above the needs of people. He openly defied their insular code by healing the withered arm, and knowingly brought down the enmity of these religious leaders upon his head.

Bother Or Blessing?

In the event within the coasts of Judea, Jesus was angered at his disciples because they rebuked the parents who had brought their children for Jesus to touch. It is difficult to think of the disciples as being boorish, unloving men. They were probably trying to shield Jesus from the bother of a crowd of little children and their doting parents. They were trying to “protect” Jesus from the crush of the masses by eliminating those who would only “waste” his time.

But, here again, we see the indignation of the Lord blaze out against those who would put form or convenience above people. In every one, whether cripple or young, Jesus saw an immortal, God-given nature capable of fellowship with the Creator, and always of infinite worth. Jesus felt very strongly that his disciples were misrepresenting him by sending anyone away, and inflicting great wrong upon those who sought to come to him. We can see the true character of the living Word, in that it was with affection and compassion he took them up in his arms, and laid his hands upon them. He blessed them and gave them his gracious care and protection. “Of such” he said of these infants, “are the Kingdom of Heaven.”

Profit Or Piety?

When Jesus’ wrath was brought down on those who bought and sold in the outer Temple courts, he was emotionally moved at the exploitation of the hearts of men in their service to God. Here, within the precincts of the building set aside for the worship of God, men made money from the religious service of pious people. In a place where there should have been prayer and communion with God, there was the noise and hubbub of the market place. In a place where there should only have been sacrifice, there was the selling of birds and animals for a profit. In a place where men should have been giving their offerings to God, there was the rattle and scraping of the money changers. To the religious leaders of the Jews, the hard earned coins the pilgrims brought from home were “unclean” and unfit to offer to Jehovah. So they offered “clean” coins at a considerable profit. Likewise, home grown sacrifices were not acceptable. One must buy the “special” doves, sheep, and oxen that the Priests would readily make available-at a definite profit.

The service men sought to give to God was seized upon by those who saw a way to make money from it. Men and their worship had become merely objects to be manipulated for profit. Jesus was so moved by such behavior that he used violent means to purge his Father’s house of that “den of “thieves.”

What Do They Hold In Common?

What is it that these three examples hold in common? Just this: Jesus was driven- to outrage by the total selfishness and callous indifference demonstrated by “religious” men to human need. Jesus reacted to this attitude in men consistently with passionate anger. He left all to come to this world to take men’s sins away on the cross of Golgotha. In the face of the cross, he was confronted with men who were so wrapped up in the physical or the ritualistic that they ignored the needs of those for whom he was willing to die. No hotter contempt is found anywhere than Jesus’ words to the self-centered scribes and pharisees (Matt. 23; “Woe unto you. . . .”). Nowhere else in the scriptures do we find more cutting portrayals of the hypocrisy of the “religiously pious” Jews than in the parables of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37), the Unmerciful Servant (Matt. 18:23-35), the Pharisee and the Publican (Luke 18:9-14), or in the Marriage of the King’s Son (Matt. 22:1-14).

But, Am I Guilty?

Today we have men who will use brethren and churches to advance their own causes. Whether for prestige or pocketbook, they make merchandise of the simple people who seek to please God. We have our modern money changers who see the church only as a vast resource to be tapped for their own schemes. This attitude can be seen in those preachers who use the pulpit as a means to push everything from soap to their latest scheme in personal work. On a larger scale, we see it in all the “projects” thought up by brethren around the world-that all ultimately bring glory or income to the one pushing his “godly” product.

We see this attitude in those self-serving preachers who move from one place to another motivated only by a desire for more. We see it in churches who hoard their resources while the needs of the Gospel go wanting. They “hang on” for a day that will never come. We see this attitude in those brethren who have never converted one, nor made an effort. These brethren believe that their “faithful” attendance and paltry contribution weekly will assure them of God’s approval. We see this attitude in the discrimination and snobbery practiced against those who have nothing to offer in the way of prestige, power, or glory.

Yes. It is easy to understand why the Lord was angry. We must wonder what his words will be to us when we meet him in the Judgment. Will they be, “Come ye blessed of my Father. . .”? or will they be “Depart from me, ye cursed . . .”? The answer lies in how we treated men while we were on this earth (Matt. 25:31-46).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:45, p. 6-7
September 19, 1974