Truth Magazine

By Frank Thompson

I have just finished reading the April 1972 edition of Contending For The Faith, edited by IraY.Rice, Jr. In it he does a fair job of “taking to task” Pepperdine University for their liberalism. He points out that the President, William S. Banowsky, and the Chairman of tile Bible Department, Frank Pack, had both had connections with Mission Magazine. “Banowsky was one of Mission’s chief architects and founders.” “Frank Pack . . . has been-and may still be-one of Mission’s Trustees and on its Board of Editors. ” Rice said that neither of these had stated his disapproval of Mission. Rice says of Mission, “It is a fact that one of the chief avenues by which erroneous doctrines have infiltrated this brotherhood ever since its inception both has been and is the magazine called Mission.”

He takes the Chancellor of Pepperdine, Norval Young, to task for letting “known false teachers” such as “Roy Osborne, Wesley Reagan, Walter E. Burch, Ray F. Chester, Dwain Evans, Donald H. McGaughey, David Stewart, Roy Bowen Ward, and J. Harold Thomas,” write for 20th Century Christian and Power For Today.

Rice further opposes their using “known false teachers” such as James Attebury and four others who “were forced to resign under pressure for either false teaching or else sympathy for those teaching false doctrine at Harding College.” He also believes Tony Ash may be accepting and teaching “Theistic Evolution.”

He goes ahead to point out a number of other things such as President Banowsky speaking at the dedication of an Episcopalian school building in Ventura, Cal. and that Pepperdine had held some kind of Catholic week and had a regular mass in Chapel. Then they had a program called “We Don’t Give A Damn.” The man reporting this last incident, Shelby C. Smith, was told directly by one who was there that a “young man that came out on the stage said: ‘To explain what I mean by that, is the church of Christ don’t give a damn what we do.’ He said it got so rough he got up and walked out. Sounds like the new President isn’t helping any. I would say Pepperdine is getting kindly rough.

I can sympathize with Ira Rice in his condemnation of the situation at Pepperdine and certainly would not recommend anyone sending their children to such a school. But, what Rice and many others cannot see is that they helped to establish the atmosphere and set the precedents for what is now taking place, not only at Pepperdine, but in many so-called churches of Christ throughout the land. They did this in their upholding of unscriptural practices of centralized control and sponsoring church type cooperation, as found in the support of Orphan’s Homes, Herald of Truth, sponsoring church support for preachers, church support of colleges, hospitals, etc.

I have before me a Newsletter by Ira Rice written while he was in Singapore in which he labored long and hard to justify such things. He took the example of those in Antioch sending funds to Judea for the needy because of the famine (Acts 11:27-30), then very smoothly shifted gears and applied that to his wife and himself in Singapore to preach the gospel.

According to him, Acts 11: 27-30 would justify churches sending a contribution to the church in Dallas for the purpose of helping the church in Dallas support him in Singapore. Preaching the gospel and feeding the hungry is not the same thing, they are not parallel. Such disregard for Bible authority gave birth to the situation that now exists. Once you disregard Bible authority there is no stopping place. It is like the legend of the Camel’s Nose:

“An old legend relates that during a violent thunderstorm, a camel unobtrusively asked an Arab for permission to put ‘just his nose’ under the flaps of the Arab’s tent. Shortly thereafter, as the storm continued unabated, the camel asked permission to put in his neck and the request was granted; then, his shoulders. Soon the camel was entirely in the tent and the Arab was completely outside the tent.”

Ira Rice and others did not “beware the camel’s nose,” so presently, the whole camel is let in and they are being pushed out. They had not planned on this! They had intended for it to stop with just the nose coming in. But once the camel gets his nose in-look out!

Again, I do not like the situation at Pepperdine any better than does Ira Rice, but neither can I appreciate his disregard for Scriptural authority that helped make that situation possible.

I now wonder: Is Rice willing to kick the whole camel out? Or does he just want to back him out to where just his nose is left in? If the latter is what he wants, what is to keep the camel from working his way back in?

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 17, pp. 12-13
March 1, 1973

By Joe Neil Clayton

The children of Israel were poised on the order of the Promised Land. Years of pain, moderated by miracles, were behind them in the wilderness. They had witnessed the destruction a whole generation of their brethren who had rebelled against God. But, Moses could not be content that they had learned the lessons of faith and obedience sufficiently well to guarantee their proper behavior in the future. Therefore, he devoted much of his last time with them to warn them of the consequences of rebellion, and encourage them with promises of blessing. This was the blessing and the curse, and its significance was shown in two different ways. To the Israelites, it was emphasized by the object lesson of setting the blessing on mount Gerizim, and the curse on mount Ebal. (Deut. 1:29). To us today, the importance of these words is shown in the fact that they occupy eight chapters of the book of Deuteronomy. The Lord has emphasized faith and obedience in this way, and we should be impressed. If He expends that much precious space to insure obedience to a “faulty” law (Heb. 8:7), how much more important is the word with the “glory that surpasseth.” (2 Cor. 3:10).

The basic trait of the Old Testament is that it deals with physical things and carnal acts. It naturally follows, then, that any blessing or curse pronounced in reference to that law would also involve physical things. For example, in the category, Blessings: they would prolong their days (Deut. 4: 40), they would increase mightily (Deut. 6:3), they would possess the land and thrust out their enemies (Deut. 6:18-19), and many other blessings (Deut. 7:1-16, 11:13-15). In the category, curses: God would be angry and destroy them (Deut. 6:14-15), or he would take away the blessings of rain and prosperity (Deut. 11:16-17).

No people in the entire world had as much going for them as the Israelites. Their God could win battles for them, cause the ground to flourish for them, and He could guard them from disease and pestilence. All they had to do in return was faithfully adhere to the precepts of the Law of Moses. That simple covenant would have been easy to keep, but the record shows a progressive intensity of rebellion on their part. They gradually forgot God by substituting the gods of the land who were supposed to have the powers of Jehovah, but who were impotent.

In the course of time and plan came the New Testament. It has been abused and confused with concepts that human wisdom devised. So, God has chosen to reveal in it a system of blessings and curses, in hope that man would not be so bold in his rebellion. The nature of the New Testament, however, is spiritual rather than carnal. Its blessings refer to spiritual well being, while its curses predict spiritual loss (such loss must be more dramatic and costly than physical loss).

In the realm of spiritual blessings, promised for faithful obedience, we can abide in the love of Christ (John 15:10-111; we can enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 7:21); We can know and be in Christ (I John 2:3-6); we can be made free from sin (Rom. 6:17-18).

On the other side of the coin, if we do not submit to the will of God, we shall surely “suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might.” (2 Thess. 1: 7 b-9). Also, that disobedience can cause us to be in a state worse than when we had not known the Lord (2 Pet. 2:20-22). The writer of Hebrews states that a man disobedient to Moses’ Law died “without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses,” and then asks, “of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden tinder foot tile Son of God, and has counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and has done despite unto the Spirit of grace?” (Heb. 10:28-29). Can our minds frame an imaginative answer to this question? If we know the importance of the Son of God and His revelation, it is not too difficult, but the picture that comes to mind is frightening.

In both the Old and New covenants, there are warnings against changing the word of God (Deut. 4:2, Rev. 22:18-19). In both covenants, we are urged to be encouraged by a knowledge of the good things done for its (Deut. 4:32-39, Heb. 12:1-3). And, in both covenants, we are told to increase our knowledge in order to have greater reward (Deut. 6:4-9, Col. 2: 1-10). Nevertheless, the New Covenant supercedes the old in glory and authority, and we must never allow ourselves to take it lightly. Obedience to the Law of Christ promises spiritual blessings to supercede all the blessings of earth, and disobedience calls for punishment far more calamitous than any physical curse. Let its not follow the Israelites in the way of rebellion, for the consequences for us have an eternal nature.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 17, pp. 11-12
March 1, 1973

By Cecil Willis

Much headway has been made in the past generation or so in regard to the financial support of gospel preachers. There was one nine month period in the life of W. W. Otey when, while be devoted full-time to evangelistic work, the brethren paid him the grand total of $30. Brother Otey said this amount did not even pay for the feed his horse consumed during this nine-month stretch. Many of our older preachers (and some not so old!) relate stories about being paid for gospel meetings with vegetables, chickens, or a ham.

However, most preachers today are reasonably well supported. Most brethren have been taught their duty toward those who give themselves fervently to the preaching of the gospel. Churches that are able to do so usually furnish a reasonably adequate salary to sustain any man they secure to assist them in gospel work. Within the last 25 years or so, many of the churches have begun to furnish the preacher a house as a part of his salary, or at least to provide a separate housing allowance.

A sizable number of the churches have begun either to pay half or all of the preacher’s social security tax. Preachers are considered by Internal Revenue Service as self-employed persons, and thus pay a considerable higher social security tax rate than ordinary employees. In fact, employers pay an equal amount of social security tax to that paid by employees. The preacher in many cases ends up paying virtually both the employer’s and the employee’s share of the social security tax. This social security tax for self-employed persons soon will amount to about $1000 per year. I believe the rate this year will be about $800, depending on ones income. This means that the average preacher soon will be paying about $75 per month social security tax. It is my opinion that more churches are going to have to begin either paying this social security tax as a salary supplement, or at least share in the paying of it, as other employers do.

But virtually nothing has been done about considering some kind of a preacher retirement program. Unfortunately, preachers also grow old. A large segment of American industry has some kind of employee retirement program. Hence, a large share of brethren themselves are now covered by some kind of retirement program, in addition to social security, which would provide only a subsistence living level at best.

About two years ago a group of brethren were appointed by John C. Stevens, Abilene Christian College President, to study out some kind of feasible retirement program which might could be recommended to any church interested in assisting men who have given their lives to gospel preaching. Fourteen men worked many months in order to recommend some general guidelines to be considered before entering into such a program. Their recommendations have been printed in a four-page brochure (which also was printed in the October 3, 1972 Firm Foundation). I have one hundred of these brochures and will be glad to send one to any preacher or church interested in investigating the various types of preacher retirement programs available.

As the President says, “let me make one thing very clear.” I do not have anything to sell! I am not in any manner connected with any company selling retirement programs. In fact, the brochure that I have proposed to mail out to anyone requesting it (as long as they last) does not recommend any particular company or retirement programs. It simply enumerates some questions that a preacher or church should consider before entering into any type of preacher retirement program. The Internal Revenue Service has a good deal to say about which retirement programs will qualify for tax exemption.

This brochure contains a good deal of information that I think would be helpful to brethren. Just as churches have been taught to discharge their obligations to a man while he works with them, it appears to me that churches ought to feel some responsibility to see that a man has enough to sustain him after his fruitful and useful years are gone. He should not have to resort to public welfare.

A few years ago I knew a brother who had preached the gospel seventy years. He had saved a little money (about $20,000, which he had earned by secular labor after he was seventy years old) and owned a home. He thought he had enough to care for himself. However, a prolonged sickness consumed all his savings. His home then was sold and his sickness also consumed all the proceeds from the sale of his home. It appeared that this brother was going to become public welfare case. I thought for him to have to resort to public charity, after seventy years of gospel service, was a disgrace for the church. I therefore asked three churches to provide this brother with a small amount monthly so that his needs might be supplied, which they joyfully did until his death.

More recently I read where a preacher who had preached for one congregation for thirty-five years was fired, and no provision whatsoever was made to see that his physical needs, now that he is seventy years old, will be supplied. Brethren would not tolerate such dealings as this in the business field.

How should the needs of an aged preacher be supplied? Are brethren willing to pay him enough now so that he might lay aside $100 or S150 a month in order that he might own a home and have enough to live on when he is forced to “retire” by physical debility? Most churches I know would think a man scandalously over-paid if they found out he was putting $100 a month into a savings account in order to provide for himself in old age.

Are churches willing to assume monthly payment responsibilities toward men who have devoted their lives to gospel preaching, but who have never worked for these congregations? I doubt it, except in rare cases. It therefore appears that it would be best if some arrangement could be worked out whereby an adequate amount is set aside monthly or annually in order to provide an aged preacher with some income after his physical health will no longer permit him to do the work of an evangelist. I suspect that a lot of brethren who themselves have such a retirement program paid, in whole or in part, by their employer will loudly denounce even the thought of a preacher retirement plan.

But be that as it may, if you are interested in reading one of these informative brochures, please write me. The brochures are free. Nobody is going to come to see you to try to sell you anything. No specific companies are recommended. This little brochure simply provides some gathered information that should be helpful to any preacher or church interested in studying the matter of providing some income for a gospel preacher during his old age.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 17, pp. 3-5
March 1, 1973

By Jeffery Kingry

In Luke 9:28-36 we read about the transfiguration of Jesus in the presence of Peter, John, and James. We must remember as we read of this part of Jesus life that he was on his way to the cross. He knew that each step that he took towards Jerusalem was a step closer to his crucifixion. Jesus had just revealed in the days before that “the son of man must suffer many things and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain and raised again the third day” (Lk. 9:22). He had also revealed to his disciples through the Holy Spirit that he is the “Christ of God” (Lk. 9:20). When Jesus was transfigured before his sleepy disciples, their first reaction was one of prejudice and lack of understanding. Jesus stood in a glorified body and spoke to the great lawgiver, Moses, and the great prophet, Elias, and “they spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem” (Lk. 9:31). This was one of the last moments of glory and reassurance that Jesus had before his death, and his disciples were totally oblivious to the importance or the significance of the occasion.

In Luke 9:37-45 we find Jesus coming down from the mount and the refreshing encouragement of his Father and the Old Testament saints, only to be confronted with the lethargy, indolence, and unbelief of his followers and the world. A distraught father, with a child in the grips of an evil spirit, cried out to him,

“Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for be is mine only child” (9:38). The impression that we get of the situation is one of confusion: people running around, not knowing what to do; the disciples were hopelessly baffled, the boys father disappointed and upset. Jesus quickly brought the situation under control, but not without sorrow and irritation (Lk. 9:41).

In the face of all the glory and adulation he was to receive at this mighty work (Lk. 9:43), Jesus said again to his disciples, “let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men. But they understood not his sayings, and it was hid from them and they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of the saying” (Lk. 9:44,45). Along the entire journey to Jerusalem and certain death, Jesus put up with and patiently taught his puffed up (Lk. 9:46,54), and ignorant (Lk. 9:49), and halfhearted (Lk. 9:57-62) followers.

Is it any wonder, after thirty-three years amongst mankind that Jesus would require patience in his disciples, as he demonstrated that quality in himself? Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 13:4 that “love suffereth long, and is kind.” flow do we treat the slow to perceive? Are we harsh and pushy, or longsuffering and kind? Paul told us in Col. 3: 13, “forbear one another, and forgive one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.” Do we harbor grudges, and become opprobrious against the weak or ignorant brother?

Above all, preachers and elders must be patient and longsuffering. “The servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle into all men. apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves” ~2 Tim. 2:24,25). The brother that will not develop these qualities, and is harsh, demanding, and quickly discouraged is not following in the steps of the Master Teacher.

 

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 16, p. 13
February 22, 1973