Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

In last week’s editorial I was explaining why I had referred to Brother Lemmons, Editor of the Firm Foundation, as being chameleon-like. He is the perfect will-of-the-wisp. Just when you think you have him pinned down so that you understand what he really believes, he writes something that sounds just the opposite.

Having read nearly everything Brother Lemmons has written for at least a decade, I thought that I understood that he was categorically opposed to congregations contributing to liberal arts colleges and to orphan homes under a board of trustees other than the elders of a local church. But watch next week for some paradoxical statements from him.

Colleges and Orphan Homes

In an editorial March 21, 1972, Brother Lemmons said: “Now a college board, or an orphan home board for that matter, is larger than the local church and it is smaller than the church universal…. We have never met anyone who would seriously attempt to justify the existence of these boards by the scriptures. . . . Unless a church can support a work that is not its own, through a board which is larger than the local congregation and smaller than ‘the church universal, then colleges are not eligible for church treasury funds. . . . This is the reason why we have opposed the operation of children’s homes under boards rather than elderships…. If it can be done tinder a board with church support, then let us apologize to the Christian church for opposition to boards. . . . Just address yourself to the task of proving by the Scriptures that boards are a scriptural arrangement through which the church can do its work. If this can be proven, all opposition to the arrangement will cease, and, as an added serendipity, we will, after we have apologized to the Christian church for a century of opposition to them, find ourselves much nearer union with them. These boards are scriptural or unscriptural; right or wrong. We ought to be able to decide which. It is not right to ignore the issue because it is the basis of much contention.’

Brother Lemmons sounds clear enough on this issue here, doesn’t he? Yet somehow he never quite gets around to naming the organizations specifically which he thinks it is unscriptural and thus sinful for churches to support, especially as it pertains to orphan homes or homes for the aged. You would think Brother Lemmons would prepare and publish a list of these institutions overseen by boards, which he professes to believe it is sinful for churches to support.

But Brother Lemmons has said a good deal more on this subject: “We have predicted before that the attempt would be made to fight this battle on the grounds of the orphan home, and try to establish a precedent for the church contributing to a competitive human institution, based upon our universal sympathy for orphan children, and that having accomplished this step, the next would be to try to put the college in the budget.” (Firm Foundation, 1964, article quoted -in full in Truth Magazine, June, 1964.) Lemmons was then replying to the tract Questions and Issues of the Day by Batsell Barret Baxter, which advocated the church support of liberal arts colleges like David Lipscomb College and Abilene Christian College, and which tract was liberally distributed by the thousands throughout the brotherhood.

Lemmons went on to charge Baxter with trying to use the emotionally laden orphan home issue as a ploy by which to get the colleges in the church budgets. Lemmons said: “This is the course taken by Brother Baxter, and those who would seek the goal of the college in the church budget. He argues the orphan home and then draws college conclusions. It would help him and others to see their error if they would argue first the college in the church budget and draw orphan home conclusions. . . . This entire college-in-the-budget question hinges upon whether the church can support a human organization ‘which is doing a good work that God wants done.’ It has been my contention from the beginning that brethren are not so much interested in church support of homes under boards, but they are interested in contending for that in order to ease into a campaign for church support of colleges. . . . Brother Baxter, and those associated with him in this movement, are violating the faith, perverting the gospel, and if division of the church throughout the nation results from this controversy, he and his associates must bear the shame and disgrace for bringing it about.”

Again, you may say, Lemmons stands plenty strong on these issues. But you see, you have so far only seen one color of the chameleon. The other color I will show you later on in this series. Nearly a decade after Baxter and the college-in the-budget brethren began their all-out crusade to get congregational support of the colleges, hundreds of thousands of dollars annually now are pouring into college coffers from congregational budgets, and Lemmons and his stalwarts are standing by relatively quiet while such goes on. They certainly have not separated themselves from Baxter and his Herald of Truth crowd, as Lemmons earlier intimated might well happen if a concerted effort should be made to secure congregational contributions for colleges. David Lipscomb College, where Baxter is Chairman of the Bible Department, publicizes widely that they are counting on “at least” $350,000 a year from congregational contributions. Meanwhile, Lemmons continues to promote Baxter and the Herald of Truth upon which he is the principal speaker, and simultaneously continues to castigate those of us who oppose & Herald of Truth and colleges in the budget as butcherers of the Lord’s Body See Firm Foundation. April 11, 1972).

In 1966 Brother Lemmons said: “. . . In recent efforts to’down anti-ism’ there has been a loosening up to the point where almost anything goes. For example, deliberate brethren will note that in a matter of a few score months we have gone ‘board crazy.’ We doubt if the number of ‘board’ arrangements for various ‘projects’ over the past 2,000 years has equaled the number such arrangements created in the past five years. Many of these are at least questionable. They are not essential for doing the Lord’s work, and they furnish fuel for the fires of sectarianism. Some brethren object, and they have a right to. A complete disregard for these objections drives a wedge, and each will blame the other for splitting the log. We are not as careful as we once were to do Bible things in Bible ways. Isn’t it time for all concerned to seriously consider the possibility of finding mutual ground, and the unity that goes with that?” (Firm Foundation, February 1, 1966).

Lemmons sounded nearly the same warning in 1968, as he editorialized: “So long as brethren insist on tapping the church treasury for the support of institutions that are not the church and not doing the work of the church we will feel constrained to reply to them. These are the very arguments made by the missionary society brethren many years ago and the college in-the-budget brethren more recently. We have no intention of letting the issue go by default… If caring for orphans is a work of the church that a benevolent society has taken over, then these brethren make their own institutions inherently wrong, just as they make the missionary society inherently wrong. Nothing then could make them right. Unless they take the position that preaching the gospel is a work of the church, while caring for orphans is not a work of the church, there is a deadly and we do mean deadly-parallel between the two.” (Firm Foundation, October 29, 1968.)

Why Brother Lemmons cannot see that the same arguments used to defend the orphan homes under boards are the very ones used to defend the sponsoring church arrangements, I do not know. It can be documented historically that church support for missionary societies, colleges, orphan homes under boards, and sponsoring churches are defended by virtually the same arguments. Brother Lemmons assays to oppose congregational support of orphan homes under boards, missionary societies and colleges, and yet wants to accept sponsoring churches. This is what he means by standing in the middle-of-the-road.

In 1967 Lemmons directly charged, as he did in the statement just quoted, that orphan homes under boards are parallel to missionary societies. Here is what he said: “We have repeated the observation many times on this page that brethren seem to be going ‘Board Crazy.’ Many brethren seem to think that most any work of the church can be set up separate and apart from the supervision of the Elders of the church under a Board of Directors and that there is nothing wrong with it. We have always maintained that the church is all sufficient to do any work that God gave the church to do. We believe that the church is its own missionary society, and we believe that the church is its own benevolent society. We continue to maintain that if a thing is the work of the church that it should be done under the Elders of the church. While there may be some slight differences between separate corporations operated under Boards of Trustees and the Missionary Society, the similarities between the two are entirely too great to ignore. ” (Firm Foundation, September 26, 1967.)

Now these statements from Lemmons all sound clear enough. In fact, he sounds like one of those whom he opprobriously labels the “anti orphan faction,” and “hobbyists.” There seems to be no uncertainty about where he stands. But then he turns around and lends his influence to those who practice what he condemns and opposes those of us who oppose what he opposes. In this article you have only seen one “hue” of the chameleon Lemmons. I will show you another color he shows on other occasions in an article to follow.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 15, pp. 3-5
February 15, 1973

By James Sanders

Imparting the Living Oracles to young minds is one of the greatest challenges in the world. It is of unspeakable importance. What is taught in childhood will be seen in manhood and read in eternity. Nothing is more rewarding or more fearful than teaching children.

Children have an almost natural yearning for knowledge. They are born with enthusiasm. But often that enthusiasm is stifled by dull illustrations or poor preparation on the part of the teacher. Lessons need to be filled with ideas but not stuffed with facts. Teaching should inspire and awaken the interest of the student. Do not tell everything; make the student think. He will remember the point longer that way. This is what the master Teacher did. The Lord would often lead His disciple to a conclusion; He never forced lessons upon them, which they were not prepared to learn. Do not overlook illustrations-they are the windows of effective teaching. Fresh illustrations and thorough preparation have no substitutes.

Above all, remember that the servant of the Lord must be patient (2 Tim. 2:24). Especially is this so with young minds so fresh from God. Everything is new to them. Children are not miniature adults-they are children. Often this escapes us in our teaching. We become vexed and sometimes even impatient because our students are not learning. But the next time you find yourself disheartened, sit down and try to write with your left hand and then remember that a child is all left hand.

In teaching others, two things are paramount. Ezekiels commission to the captive house of Israel illustrates both points:

1. First, this prophet of God was told to open his mouth and eat the scroll of the Lord and then go speak unto Israel (Ezek. 3: 1). Ezekiel first had to fully understand the Word of the Lord before he was qualified to teach it to others. So it is with us today. We must know before we can teach. And what is set before us in the Scriptures we must eat.

2. Second, Ezekiel sat where they sat (Ezek. 3:15). We must understand those we teach. We must sit where they sit.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 15, p. 2
February 15, 1973

By Dennis Lynd

Ecumenicity is the current theme of many religious groups in the world. “Unity with diversity” is the resounding cry, which will be an ensign under whom all religious bodies will gather in sacred harmony. Love will be a cure-all. Factions, heresies and party spirits will no longer divide the religious world. Unity is something that our Savior prayed for (John 17) and that every Christian is to strive for (Eph. 4:1-3). However, before we launch into this effort, perhaps there are a few things we should consider about this plea for “unity with diversity.”

Denominational View: “Diversity in unity and unity in diversity is the law of God in history as well as in nature.” Behind this concept, Philip Schaff in his History of the Christian Church suggests that “Every Protestant denomination has its own field of usefulness, and the cause of Christianity itself would be seriously weakened and contracted by the extinction of any one of them.” He maintains that “The spirit of narrowness, bigotry and exclusiveness must give way at last to a spirit of evangelical catholicity, which leaves each denomination free to work out its own mission according to its special charisma, and equally free to co-operate in a noble rivalry with all other denominations for the glory of the common Master . . . .” “Every denomination and sect has to furnish some stones for the building of the temple of God.” “And out of the greatest human discord God will bring the richest concord.” This presents the spirit of denominationalism at its taproot.

View in Mission Messenger: Several religious groups in the United States share a common heritage in the restoration movement of the last century. Spearheading the drive for ecumenicity among these peoples is the Mission Messenger, edited by Carl Ketcherside. In an article entitled “Unity With Diversity,” Patrick Phillips sets forth 76 points of controversy over which fellowship is not usually severed. Then he presents 30 issues over which fellowship usually is cut off. Among these he mentions premillennialism, speaking in tongues, institutionalism, and polygamy. Phillips blames these divisions on “lack of love,” “party spirit,” “refusing to accept Scriptural teaching on

Christian liberty and tolerance,” and “failing to limit disfellowshipping to Scriptural grounds.” The writer suggested that we should re-examine each of the 30 differences and “re-determine whether or not a break in fellowship was Scriptural.” The author continues, “I venture to suggest that if we did this we might have unity among believers over night.” “May God help us to realize that there is such a thing as unity in diversity. “

Scriptural View: “But now are they many members, yet but one body.” The Bible teaches that the individual members (people) contribute to the good of the unit, or one body (i.e. church Cf. 1 Cor. 12). This is “unity with diversity.” A Christian cannot unite with any doctrine that would bring in divers bodies, Spirits, faiths, etc. (Eph. 4). There has been a body of doctrine given that we must contend for earnestly (Jude 3). Our love for God and His Truth must have precedence over out love for man and unity (Matt. 22:36ff).

How many times must the ranks of Christs legions be decimated before old errors such as denominationalism are recognized for what they are? The doctrines of Ketcherside are the marijuana to the heroin of denominationalism. One might at first be taken by the hallucinations of “love” and “spirituality” but in the end he finds his mind fogged, convictions lost and his spiritual health in shambles.

Notes

1. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 7 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), pp. 49-50.

2. Patrick Phillips, “Unity With Diversity” found in Carl Ketcherside, One Great Chapter (Saint Louis, Mo.: Mission Messenger, 1971), pp. 75ff.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 14, p. 13
February 8, 1973

By Donald P. Ames

Before beginning this article, let me say that I write this with no ulterior motives whatsoever. I am not seeking a pay raise, have no quarrels over the pay I am receiving, and feel no need to try to justify a high salary before someone else. I am writing this article simply because I have seen reactions in other areas, and would like to pose some material for thought. Nor am I seeking to get all churches to pay their preacher a big, fancy salary. A preacher should be paid according to that which he delivers, just like anybody else. No doubt we have many preachers who are overpaid, just like there are many not receiving what their talents, and work deserve.

Certainly the idea of supporting the preacher is advanced in the word of God (1 Cor. 9: 14, 2 Cor. 11:8, Phil. 4:15). However, it is interesting to note in many churches throughout the land that many regard the work of preaching the gospel as a labor of love, and thus feel the preacher should be willing to get by on a minimum income or supplement it front other areas without hindering his work. Let its begin by noting that an effective preacher is one who has the time to study and prepare himself, to be able to visit and teach others at their convenience, and not plagued with financial problems of his own every time he turns around. Actually, if many of our preaching brethren would cease and desist part-time work (where not actually necessary) and devote their full time to the preaching of the gospel, they would be far more effective. Some of this is due to their own desires and interests, but some of it is also due to congregations who constantly begrudge the preacher a raise and create such a fuss that perhaps the preacher is even afraid to ask for one when he does need it. I have no criticism against those who must work to make ends meet-my hat is off to them, and I have done the same thing for the last 12 years. Also, I am not against the preacher who is so devoted to his work he will go ahead even without proper support. What I mainly want to provoke your thinking about is situations where this is not the case!

When was the last time you thought about giving your preacher a raise? And what were some of the reactions no doubt heard throughout the congregation? “Why he already makes more than many of us do.” “He has a better home and income than I do now, and Im not complaining,” etc. I wonder how many members really sit down and look at the preachers income objectively. In many instances he is not only busy paying his own Social Security (much of which is paid for by your employers) but his own hospitalization as well. He does not enjoy the luxury of low discount group rates from the local company, as well as many of the side benefits gained by some union. He does not have the company paying part-or in some cases, nearly all-his premiums, as many do. These are expenses that must come out of that “higher income” he seems to be enjoying. Have you priced hospitalization policies lately?

And what about his eventual retirement? No, he does not have that nice big retirement program many industries are busy giving to their employees. This too is another expense he must dig down into his pocket for-if he can even afford one. He must also carry more life insurance on himself, lacking these extra company benefits many have, to provide for his family if something happened to him.

And then there is the matter of that nice home the preacher lives in, many times provided for by the local congregation. : “Boy, I wish I could afford to live in a home like that! ” Sound familiar? Not always. The preacher many times does not have much selection in his home-it may be nice one place, and not really too nice at all in another. He may have adequate room here, and find himself very cramped in the next place. And, while many of the members are making their regular mortgage payments and talking about how good the preacher has it, he has to face the fact he is not having the chance to build tip equity, in a home of his own. When he leaves, he does not get the chance to sell his house, make a nice little profit and then go seeking something better. (Even if he owns a home, he may find himself taking a loss in order to see it sold and enable himself to continue on with the Lords work elsewhere). And, then there is that matter of interest and taxes. Yes, we all hate taxes and complain about them, but never fail to make sure we include all the Real Estate taxes, etc. as well as interest on those hated yearly income tax forms. But, again, he is deprived of the benefit of those deductions because he does not own his own home. Nor is he free to remodel or change a home at will, realizing he is merely “renting” and not the owner of the home. Yes, a fine home-maybe but even that has its drawbacks. And what has he left when your mortgage is paid off?

And then there is the matter of education. He cannot settle down and let his kids go to a good school. He must accept what comes his way as he preaches-good or bad, and hope moving does not upset the younger ones in readjusting to new friends and schools and homes, leaving all the former ones behind.

Also there are the usual expenses that are just naturally inherent in preaching, such as being host for all visiting preachers, taking care of most of the “passing through” people seeking assistance, providing transportation to various meetings, and a library that is adequate to meet and answer any question that may arise within the congregation or as a result of his preaching-and we do like those “in depth” studies!

So, the next time someone suggests a raise for the preacher and you start to react with “Hes already getting more than I am,” pause and reflect why you hired him. Do you know as much and is as much expected from you as is of him? Do you have to maintain such study habits, and provide those extra benefits that he does? Is his security and final settlement as set as yours? Now, who is really the well-paid person within the congregation?

 

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 14, pp. 11-12
February 8, 1973