"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