"Are we the Bible
believing and Bible preaching people we once were? Do we still carry
that reputation in the community? Or do we have babble in our Bible
classes and piffle and pablum from our pulpits?"
My father used to tell
about a man in the community where he once lived: He was not a religious
person, and was a member of no church in the community. He had several
daughters. When they reached the age at which they became concerned
about religion, they asked him where they should attend church. His
advice? "Go to the church of Christ, they believe and preach the Bible.
" This has been the reputation of the Lord's church throughout the
years, but one must ask, "Is this true now?" I challenge you, dear
reader, to consider the question of whether this can be said of local
church pulpits and Bible classes in our generation. I think we need to
give serious consideration to what is taking place in the Lord's church
in our time. Are we the Bible believing and Bible preaching people we
once were? Do we still carry that reputation in the community? Do our
actions merit it? Please consider what I say with a prayerful attitude.
Babble in Bible Classes
What is the average
criterion of a Bible class teacher in local churches? We often put
people up as teachers simply because they are members of the church
without regard to their skill and experience as teachers, their Bible
knowledge, or their faithfulness. Usually, in the lower classes, if one
is a member of the church and is older than the students, he/she is
qualified to be a Bible class teacher. In the upper classes, if a person
can stand up before the class and mechanically go through some other
person's prepared material, we consider him/her a qualified Bible class
teacher. Some such teachers wouldn't be able to detect or refute error
if it occurred in the material they teach.
A common complaint of
teachers where I have worked concerns the literature. It's too
difficult, or the lessons are too long, etc. So much of the published
literature for Bible classes is just plain babble at its worst, and
misdirected and shallow at its best. It tends to cater to and
accommodate the shallowness of Bible knowledge that exists among us.
Some of the literature is so concerned about the method of teaching that
it ignores the substance. Consequently, people complete the book with
little or no more knowledge than they had when they started it. We need
to study the Bible, not about the Bible.
Much of the complaining
about the literature comes from a desire on the part of inept teachers
for someone to "shell the corn" for them. They sort of want the book to
lie on the podium and teach itself! They want the literature to do their
work for them. Excuse me, but I have always said that a bad teacher
can't teach a good class with the best literature, and a good teacher
can teach an excellent class with the worst literature. Beside that, God
gives us teachers who can simply teach the text of God's holy word. Why
have we developed such shallowness that we must depend upon commercial
material for our Bible classes?
Writing new Bible class
literature is about like the constant escalation of what I call
"popcorn" versions of the Bible. Men keep trying to remedy the problem
without knowing what the problem is. We don't need new versions of the
Bible, but conversions. We need teachers who are willing to conform
their lives to the versions which have served us well for hundreds of
years; who so saturate themselves with Bible knowledge that teaching it
to others becomes natural and easy. Likewise, we don't need new Bible
class literature, we need literate Bible teachers. We don't need new
kinds of literature, we need a new kind of teacher. The problem is the
ineptitude of so many of our teachers, not just the inadequacy of
commercial literature. I am not anti-Bible class literature, but I am
anti much that is on the market today. From time to time someone comes
along with the idea that we need new Bible class literature and proceeds
to produce the same kind we already have.
There is more to teaching
than standing before a class and sequentially going through a book
prepared by some-one else where all one has to do is fill in the blanks.
In many such classes there is little or no discussion because of the
teacher's lack of depth in Bible knowledge, the skill to generate
discussion, or the ability to challenge the students to think. If the
blank is filled in, the student reads what he/she has written, and the
teacher says, "next question."
I am not exaggerating
when I say that the church contains many, many members who have
mechanically gone through our Bible class system from pre-school to
adult class who can't give the plan of salvation or the acts of worship
and substantiate them with Scripture. It's like our public education
system's graduating students who can't read. The dumbing down of
America
by the public school system has its counter part in the church. I once
received a phone call at midnight from a sister who had been in the
church all her life; as long or longer than had I, and her request was,
"Brother Needham, l am discussing the Bible with a friend, and would you
give me some Scriptures that teach that baptism is essential?"
Obviously, she thought baptism was essential, not because she had read
it and been convinced of it on her own, but because she had heard
preachers preach it. I fear this is not unusual among us. This is like a
person who finishes high school without the ability to look up a phone
number or fill out a job application.
A preacher friend told of
how he was about to teach the Book of First Corinthians. He gave a
thorough introduction to the book. When he was ready to begin a study of
the text, one of the elders said, "Brother was First Corinthians written
before or after Pentecost?" Lord, help us! I once commented in a Bible
class that not many brethren are Bible scholars. A brother replied, "Not
many are Bible students." Is that correct?
Now, on the positive
side, and lest I seem harsh and uncharitable, let me commend all
teachers for their willingness to do their best, even though in some
cases their best falls short of adequate. The condition I am describing
is not altogether their fault. The fault lies largely with the
leadership in local churches. If I had my way about it, and I don't, no
per-son would ever be appointed to teach a Bible class who is not
regular in attendance, whose life is not exemplary, who does not dress
properly, who does not have a working knowledge of the entire Bible, and
who has not gone through a teacher training class. It is absurd to place
the responsibility of teaching a Bible class upon a person who has
absolutely no training in the skill of teaching. That's like buying your
teenager a newcar, giving him/her the keys without giving them driving
lessons. Driving is a skill to be learned, not something inborn. I use
the word "skill" intentionally, because teaching is a skill. A skill is
something one learns, not something with which he was born. To be sure
one can have inborn traits and abilities that will enhance his/her skill
as a teacher, but teaching is a skill that must be learned. This is
obvious from the fact that our public education system has a minimum
requirement of four years of college including education courses before
one can be a licensed
For over a year now, due
to health concerns, I have been forced into what might be called
"semi-retirement." This means that I have not preached every Sunday, or
had a Bible class to teach all the time. Thus, I have been in Bible
classes taught by others, and have listened to others preach more than I
have in the last 49 years. This article is based upon observations
during the last year, and upon experience over 49 years in local work
and 13 years as both an elder and local preacher.
I recently sat in a Bible
class in which Jesus' first miracle at the wedding in Cana was the
subject. Here are some of the comments and questions that occurred in
the class. Who catered the wedding feast? Since Jesus' mother asked him
to provide the wine, and told the servants to do whatever he told them
to do, perhaps she was in charge? Since she seems to have been in
charge, was the bride or groom a relative of Jesus? How many gallons did
the waterpots hold? How many persons were present at the wedding? These
and similar questions consumed the entire class and the students went
away without learning anything of the significance of the event or
lessons to be learned from it.
I also sat in a Bible
class in which Dorcas (Acts 9) was the subject. Here are the questions
and comments that consumed the class period. How old was Dorcas when she
died? What was the cause of her death? How many garments had she made
and given to the poor widows? She must have been wealthy to have given
all those garments to the poor widows. Of what fabric were the garments
made? Why was she called by two names, Tabitha and Dorcas? Most of this
is just plain babble, speculation, and shallow.
I know of a Bible class
which at "Valentine" season had valentines all over the room. Another
one taught a lesson out of published literature about Easter and
Christmas. Another class was teaching children that they should not be
ashamed to be different by suspending pictures of penguins from the
ceiling. A vacation "Bible" school class had silly looking cartoon
characters riding camels, palm trees, etc. all over the walls from
ceiling to floor, and a make-shift booth where animals were supposedly
sold for sacrifice. In all this there is more entertainment than Bible
study. It demonstrates artistic ability not teaching skill.
It may be shocking to
some but it is a fact that a good artist is not necessarily a good Bible
teacher. It is sometimes the case that in trying to use visual aids the
student's attention is drawn more to the art, the technology, and the
gimmicks used to present the lesson than to the lesson itself. The end
result is that knowledge of God's word is not increased. A brother
recently told me of a business presentation he saw. He said the teacher
had the latest technology in visual aids. He had every-thing set up on a
computer, and all he had to do to project a chart on the screen was to
push a button. He said I was so fascinated by his slick machinery and
technology that I got nothing from his presentation. Please consider the
implications of this with reference to Bible classes.
This shallowness in our
"Bible" teaching is manifested when local churches choose elders. An
elder is supposed to be "apt to teach." The general concept of this
qualification is this: can he stand before a class and mechanically go
through material prepared by others? He may never have taught but a
class or two, and the majority of the members who select him were never
in a class he taught. He may not be able to handle controversial
questions and false concepts that rise in the class, but if they know
that he has made any kind of an effort, regardless of how feeble, to
teach a class, then he is "apt to teach." Now, does any serious Bible
student believe this to be what the Spirit had in mind in requiring that
an elder be "apt to teach"? Come now, let's be serious! I've heard it
said that someone asked brother J.D. Tant once if he thought elders
should be apt to teach, and he replied, "Where I have preached elders
are apt to do most anything." Once I was going to be absent from my
Bible class, and I asked one of the elders who attended the class, if he
would fill in for me. His reply was, "You wouldn't put that on me, would
you?"
I once asked for a
meeting with the elders to challenge some false doctrine that was being
taught by the preacher. I asked, "Do you brethren endorse this
teaching?" To which they replied, "No, but we don't know how to refute
it. We don't have a spokesman." Interesting! It has been my
understanding of the Scriptures that the elders are supposed to be their
own spokesmen. Paul said elders are to "Hold ... fast the faithful word
as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to
exhort and to convince the gainsayers. For there are many unruly and
vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose
mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which
they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake" (Tit. 1:9-11). It was argued
that elders don't have to be able to refute false doctrine, but provide
a refutation of it. Please read the above passage carefully, and see if
you think that's a proper understanding of it.
Piffle and Pablum From
Pulpits
There is a lot of piffle
and pablum pouring forth from pulpits across this land in what we think
of as conservative churches. "Sermons" consist of quotations from
Calvinistic theologians, philosophers, and pop psychologists.
Personal motivation talks
are not gospel sermons. Quotations from C. S. Lewis and Karl Menninger
are not equal to quotations from Peter, John, and Paul. I am not saying
it is always wrong to quote from men when they say something better than
we can, but when such quotations dominate our preaching, or become the
basis of our faith, something has gone wrong with our priority list.
Many young preachers
today don't know how to refute false doctrine and have no interest in
learning how. They don't see the refutation of false doctrine as part of
the work of preaching the gospel. They shy away from controversial
subjects. I sometimes refer to it as "slap Jane preaching." A mother
took her little Johnny to school for his first day. Knowing that he was
wont to get out of hand sometimes, she said to the teacher, "If Johnny
misbehaves, slap Jane who sits next to him, and it will scare him and
settle him down." Paul said, "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful
works of darkness, but rather reprove them" (Eph.
5:11).
Preachers who don't have the courage to preach the truth and expose
error by name, need to find something else to do. If they curry the
favor of men, they should not be servants of Christ (Gal.
1:10).
They ought to be politicians. They need to spend more time studying the
word of God and less time drinking at the fountainhead of
denominationalism. Many are not looking for an opportunity to serve the
Lord but a way to serve their own interests. As N.B. Hardeman used to
say, "They want to sit down in a tub of butter." Some who have never
been involved in the rough and tumble of contending with false teaching
and teachers, criticize the fight we made in the 40's, 50's, and 60's
over institutionalism and the sponsoring church concept. They criticize
the way we went about it. Good friends, it is one thing to be in the
thick of the battle and quite another to sit on the sidelines and
criticize the way the soldiers hold their weapons. Their philosophy is,
"Let error alone, let it die a natural death." How naive can we get?
Error never dies a natural death, it has to be killed with the sword of
the Spirit.
I knew a young preacher
who persuaded the church to conduct a call-in radio program. He asked
preachers in the area to be his guests. During all the time that I
listened to the program, he invited only young preachers even though
older and more experienced preachers were plentiful. One could have
listened to the program for a year and never learned what to do to be
saved or that there is a difference between the Lord's church and human
denominations. This young man and his guests conceived of themselves as
counsellors, and every question was approached from the viewpoint of pop
psychology. They quoted psychologists, C.S. Lewis, Carl Menninger, and
other popular writers, and almost never the word of God.
College lectureships used
to be staffed by the most able preachers in the brotherhood who filled
their lectures with solid Bible teaching. I can remember hearing men
like Homer Hailey, Gus Nichols, John T. Lewis, Harry Pickup, Sr., Frank
Van Dyke, and others deliver masterpieces of solid Bible teaching. In my
day brother Hailey was best known for expository work on one of the
epistles. John T. Lewis walked through the halls of the Old Testament
with a knowledge of every character as if he were personally acquainted
with each one. One came away feeling he had walked through faith's hall
of fame. He quoted long passages from the prophets, and could recite the
genealogy of Christ all the way back to Adam without missing a link. A
brother from the "conservative liberals" recently said, "In our
lectureships we have such wonderful subjects and such poor speakers, in
your's you have such poor subjects and such wonderful speakers." I don't
know if his evaluation is true, but maybe its something to think about.
I do know this, nothing, but nothing, beats old time gospel preaching
and hard-nosed Bible study. This is what it will take to keep the church
on the straight and narrow path. When we depart from the fundamentals,
we take our first step toward apostasy. Could it be that we are more
concerned with being politically correct than with being scripturally
correct?
I once heard a gospel
preacher spend several minutes apologizing before he quoted Mark
16:16! He wanted all to know that he was not trying to hurt anyone's
feelings, he just wanted to tell the people what the Lord said. He
realized that not everybody agreed on what the passage teaches, but he
wanted them to know what it says. Brother L.L. Briggance, one of my
beloved college professors, told of a preacher who gave the invitation
in these words, "If you don't believe in some degree, and repent to some
extent, you are liable to be damned somewhat."
Let me hasten to add that
there are some notable exceptions to what I have said here (thank the
Lord!). I don't want to paint every young preacher with the same brush.
But it doesn't take a genius to realize that the conditions I have
described exist to an alarming degree. And let me as-sure you that I am
not the only person who thinks so.
Young preachers are being
paid more today than preachers ever have been paid. Young preachers with
little experience and mediocre ability are being paid two and three
times as much as the older more experienced preachers were ever paid,
and for what? A couple of canned sermons per week based in pop
psychology and Dale Carnage type personal motivation that make people
feel good, and perhaps a Bible class or two. It's nice to make people
feel good if it is because they are on good terms with the Lord, but
most often the preacher's job is to comfort the afflicted and afflict
the comfortable. In many cases these young preachers are being paid
outstanding salaries to lead the church down the prim-rose path of
compromise and eventual apostasy. For months I listened to sermons that
could have been preached in any de-nomination in town without raising an
eyebrow. These sermons would have received a warmer reception among the
sectariansthan they received from some of the brethren.
I recently sat through a
"sermon" in which the young preacher compared the local church to a
football team. He had the elders as the coaches, the preacher as the
quarter-back (he runs the game, you know!), and the members as the
players. He spent about 45 minutes on this. I learned a good bit about
football and nothing about the scriptural function of the Lord's church.
I don't begrudge a sound,
hard-working gospel preacher being paid well. It has been my philosophy
that a good gospel preacher cannot be overpaid, and a bad one is always
overpaid. I certainly am glad gospel preachers are paid bet-ter than
some of us older ones were.
The first two years I
tried to preach I did two-thirds of it for nothing! (That's probably all
it was worth!) Some churches would give me the Lord's day contribution,
three or four dollars. (The contribution always seemed to be smaller the
day I preached!) I often bought gas on credit, drove my old car 100
miles to preach on Sunday with 50 cents in my pocket which would buy my
wife and me a hamburger on the way home.
Conclusion
God said, "My people are
destroyed for lack of knowledge" (Hos. 4:6). It seems to happen
in every generation. Some writer said, "they who refuse to learn from
history are doomed to repeat it." So true. Amos said, "Behold, the days
come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land not a
famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the
LORD" (Amos 5:11). No doubt Amos had reference to a time when God
would send no prophet to a rebellious and apostate people, but we are
dangerously close to a spiritual famine in our time. There is a famine
of hearing the word of the Lord because it is not being preached, and
because when it is preached there is an unwillingness to hear and heed
its divine message. 0, my dear brethren, what can we expect from present
trends? Will America become a "mission field" for the religion of
Christ? Will brethren from Nigeria or South Africa have to send brethren
to re-establish the Lord's church in the United States? When the
apostasy over institutionalism and the sponsoring church started, a
brother predicted that Nashville, Tennessee would become a "mission
field." (Did he ever take some "flack.") It all but came true!
Apostasy's broom swept quite cleanly in the city that had more churches
of Christ than any place on earth, and for years had been known for its
devotion to the faith of our Lord the city of the five tabernacle
meetings of the late N.B. Hardeman (known as "the prince of preachers")
in which he preached the old Jerusalem gospel to many thousands in
attendance. We can read of strong churches that existed in the first
century in places like Ephesus, Corinth, Colosse, etc. What happened to
those churches? Can one find a congregation of the Lord's people in any
of those places today? Don't say it can't happen here.
Guardian of Truth
-November 16, 1995
Other Articles by James P. Needham
Preserving Distinct Church Organization