The
associations of this week have been extremely pleasant to me, but I
can't say that my work has been too pleasant. I mean that there are some
things that I would rather talk about than the things that have been
assigned me this week to discuss. But we all need to be told once in a
while what's the matter with us. This has been a series of criticisms.
I'm telling what's the matter with us. There are some things that ought
to be said at times, that need to be said; and everybody can't say them;
and some who can; won't say them; and it is not extremely pleasant to
anybody to say them, and not pleasing to everybody to hear them. There
always have been problems, there always will be. The attitude that
problems and troubles and things that are alarming, ought to be ignored
is not only absurd, it is unscriptural. The idea of always accentuating
the positive and eliminating the negative—I believe that's the way they
put it—just simply doesn't line up with New Testament teaching. For
instance, I find when Paul told Timothy to preach the word, he said, "Be
urgent in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long
suffering and doctrine." (2 Tim 4:2) Now just what does that
mean? Well, there is a perfect standard of Christian living set before
us in the example of Jesus our Lord; there is a perfect standard of what
the church ought to be in the New Testament. Since nobody measures up to
that perfect standard of individual life, and no church can measure up
100% to the standard of excellency found for the local church in the New
Testament, we need to be constantly on the watch. We need to be led
into, and sometimes whipped into line. "Reprove, rebuke, exhort." What
is that but recognizing and dealing with the problems that arise in the
individual life and in the activities of the church? There are some
people who don't seem to know or care, but I do, and a lot of you people
do; many preachers do. We care very deeply about keeping the church what
it was when the Lord designed it and built it.
In the
book of Jude, I find this statement: "Beloved, while I was giving all
diligence to write unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained
to write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which
was once for all delivered unto the saints." (Jude 3) When some
development arises that modifies or changes the faith, or alters the
church, it is alarming to some of us, and we don't like it, and we are
not going to stay quiet and allow subversive influences to gain headway
unopposed. That is the spirit of the New Testament, some compromisers to
the contrary notwithstanding. The faith is a definite system of doctrine
revealed by the Holy Spirit. Contend earnestly for it. Why is it
necessary to contend for it? "For there are certain men" The term
"certain men" indicated that they had been marked, classified, and were
pretty well known. "Certain men crept in privily, even they who were of
old written of beforehand unto this condemnation, ungodly men, turning
the grace of our Lord into lasciviousness." (Jude 4) If you think
that doesn't belong to us; that it is none of our business; that we
ought to ignore all such developments, note what Paul told the elders of
a local church. "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock," because
"from among your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things",
contrary things, "to draw away disciples after them." (Acts 20:28-30)
Paul called them wolves, and in another connection he called them dogs.
To use language like that now would give some modern degree men in
religion creeping paralysis. They consider it very unchristian. But we
find these warnings in the New Testament.
I have
been dealing with problems, problems, problems, this week, till I feel
that just a summing up might be the best thing, but we don't have time
to sum up. There are other problems that need to be dealt with, and when
I am through, you can say that if I left anything out, I didn't go to do
it.
Gossipers
About
divisions that arise in the local church, one of the difficulties in
maintaining peace in the local church is that there are some people in
every one of them that talk too much. James said. "Be not many of you
teachers, my brethren, knowing that ye shall receive heavier judgment."
(James 3:1) You know, some crackpots in the church have an idea
that everybody in the church ought to be a teacher. That is not so; the
Bible doesn't teach it. Some people are not qualified to teach, by
intelligence, nature, or ability. There is a responsibility connected
with words that is tremendous and awe inspiring. James said that the
tongue is a little member and boasts great things. "Behold, how much
wood is kindled by how small a fire." (James 3:5) I've never seen
a church trouble in my life that could not have been settled much more
easily if a lot of irresponsible people had learned the lesson of when
to talk, and more important still, when not to talk. I've known churches
that were enjoying peace and getting along fine, until somebody with a
long tongue and an empty head moved in from some other community and
started talking. I was in a meeting over in another state one time with
a big church. The song leaders I've been associated with are usually
fine fellows. This song leader had been imported. I was told by
responsible men in the church, that this fellow is a splendid singer,
but he is working around like a termite, talking and stirring up
trouble, gossiping and agitating, what in the world are we going to do
about it? When there are responsible people in a congregation who are
capable of saying what ought to be said, it is a pity that some
critical, senseless unreasonable gossiper will keep things in a stir by
talking too much.
Beggars
Not
speaking locally, but generally, there are some plain downright
nuisances in the church—these traveling collecting agents. I remember
one time where I was in a meeting, preaching twice a day, one of these
fellows who had been traveling around agitating and collecting for
various things breezed into town. The preacher came to me and said Bro.
So and So is here, and he wants the morning service. You know those
fellows feel like when they come to town, they are on the main line and
everybody else has to take a sidetrack. Well, I was always agreeable; I
am one of the easiest fellows to get along with in the world. I hardly
ever say anything that people don't like, so I told this preacher to let
him have the morning service, You know he didn't even say much obliged,
hope that we would have a good meeting, or even recognize me in my own
meeting a bit. He got up and he acted as though his sideshow was the
main show, and gave us a skinning because we didn't show interest in his
pet project. He had been to Japan and made a failure, came back and had
been running around over the country ever since collecting and skinning
us preachers because we were not in Japan. We went to the same place for
lunch that day, and I was letting him do most of the talking. He turned
to me and said, "Bro. Wallace, why don't more of our strong men go to
Japan?" I said, "I guess you mean me, but the reason I don't go is
because I don't want to". He said, "Bro. So and So is going to
Japan."
And I said, "Well, what business has he got over there? He is a middle
aged man with a family, and if he goes over it will take him five years
to learn to say good morning to one of those heathen, what can he do
over there?" To call it impractical and idealistic is honoring it too
much. Understand me, if anybody wants to go to Japan or anywhere else in
the world where there are people that he can teach, and can do any good,
and he is qualified to do it, he has my good wishes, and maybe a little
of my money, but the attitude that some of these surveyors, assessors
and collectors are taking is a public nuisance.
Well, just
to be plain about it, we have some beggars. I was over in Mineral Wells
a while back, talking to the head man of a radio station with the
prospect of using a little time. We just fell to talking about some of
the problems. He said these radio preachers are problems, and getting to
be not only a national problem, but a national scandal, making a racket
out of it, and he said some of them are getting rich at it. It's ''send
me a dollar please" for this or that or the other thing. Without calling
any names, I'm too nice for that, we have at least one of them. "Send me
a dollar please." To help him buy a printing press; then he wants some
more money to pay his hospital expenses; and finally if you'll send him
a dollar for the annual celebration of his birthday, he will send you
his picture, and a picture of his family, and you can hang it up under
"God Bless Our Home," and have something to kneel down before when you
pray.
You know
the problem is that there are so many brethren over the country that are
willing to just run over one another to get on a sucker list like that.
People that don't have enough money to pay their bills will send a
fellow like that ten dollars. And by the way, when he sends out an S.O.S.
he wants you to be sure when you make out the check to mark it, whether
it is gift or a loan. Are his books audited? Why, of course not. Does
anybody know how much he gets? Why, of course not. On the face of it; it
is nothing but a racket. Of course a man who will work a racket like
that won't be ashamed of it, but folks who will play sucker like that
ought to be ashamed of it. I'm ashamed of them. I didn't tell my radio
friend that we had one of them. I didn't want him to know it. But some
good, honest, sincere, innocent souls send a dollar and think they are
doing God's service. You know, well informed and sensible brethren ought
to take care of a thing like that—but that is a problem also.
Cranks
Then, you
know, we have the problem of just a few plain nitwits, and I am not
going to call any names here. One of them in particular I know is an
editor, and I'm not talking about Roy Cogdill. Maybe I can help you
identify him. He and the racketeers run together. He recently had an
article in which, among the other haywire things he was advocating, he
charged that we are unscriptural because we are not practicing the holy
kiss, like Paul told the Romans to do. Before I tell you what I think
about that, and I don't think it will be necessary because you can think
it without being told, he wrote in another article that he had a farm
and he gave it away, and he gave it away because they raised tobacco on
it; and since tobacco was such a sin, he couldn't afford even to own a
farm that raised tobacco, and he gave it away. Being nice like I am, I
wrote a little squib and asked him if he put a restrictive clause in the
deed to keep that farm from continuing in sin.
When it
comes to crackpots, we have too many of them, and when they begin to
sound off they vibrate in unison. You know what I mean and it
constitutes a problem in the church. In certain sections of the country,
you'll find them making tests of fellowship on matters that ought to be
strictly matters of personal discretion. But in some places matters of
personal discretion are being made tests of fellowship.
In one of
the cities of this country, a preacher, a good preacher too, and a good
man, came over to my meeting with some of his diet ideas. He ate
vegetables and meat was poison to him, just on general principles, he
just had "scrutientious scrumples agin it." He wouldn't eat it, but he
had sense enough not to try to keep me from eating it, so as to be
scriptural and all that. This good brother with his diet ideas got it in
his mind that ice tea isn't fit for a hog to drink, and that coffee is
not only poison but sinful, and that was one of his main sermons. I
followed him in a meeting, smoking my pipe. I went home for lunch with
one of the elders of the church. He told me that his wife reacted rather
quickly to suggestions, and got the idea when she heard Bro. So and So
preaching about tea and coffee being such a sin, that she had better
quit. She had been drinking it all her life, and when she quit she got
sick, and her nerves went bad, and she finally went to bed, but she
wouldn't drink any coffee. This elder got tired of the foolishness, and
went to the kitchen and made a pot of coffee. He took a cup and sat down
by the bed and said, "Drink this. Forget about that foolishness, that
preacher is not running this end of the line any longer".
You know,
instead of emphasizing the fundamental principles of the gospel, some
preachers are trying to turn the church into a set of Holy Rollers,
Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and Mennonites, or what have
you, and some of us are not going to stand for it as long as we've got
barbed tongues and sharpened pencils. (The brethren generally have got
enough sense not to stand for that sort of foolishness. There is not
much difference between a fanatic and a lunatic—they are both tics. If
they want to run in a gang to themselves, all right, but we don't need
the church put before the public caricatured as a set of hobbyists,
fanatics and extremists.
The First Church
In considering the experiences of the early
church, you'll find in the Jerusalem church essentially all of these
problems and how to deal with such matters. Let's take half a dozen
problems. First of all, three thousand people were added in one day and
the first congregation of disciples, known as the church, came into
existence—three thousand of them, and three thousand people, newly
converted, brought together into the communion was a problem to begin
with. (Acts 2:41)
Not only that, a short time later the number increased to five-thousand,
and the record says "the word of God increased and the number of
disciples multiplied in Jerusalem exceedingly". (Acts 6:7) They
multiplied. Well, there was the problem of growth. How are you going to
keep a church in line that grows like that? Well, I'll tell you how they
did it. You know the 42nd verse of the second chapter says "they
continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship, in the
breaking of the bread and prayers". (Acts
2:42)
The Apostles were busy indoctrinating
the people. The only thing that held them in line was teaching, making
them acquainted with the principles, the fundamentals of the gospel.
They were right there in the white heat of the faith as it was being
burned by specific teaching into their souls by the apostles and their
helpers.
Later, the
problems increased. (There was murmuring and a trouble over the use of
funds.) The apostles said that they could not forsake the word of God
and serve tables, and appointed men for this business. (Acts 6:2)
Business was important, but it wasn't as important as preaching the
gospel. Nowadays a church thinks that it can deal with all its problems
by calling a preacher who is a wonder on wheels. They expect him to do
all the visiting, and they expect him to hear all the calls for
distress; they expect him to do the work of the elders, and some members
of the church expect him to be sitting on their doorstep when they go to
bed, and be there by the time they get up in the morning. In New
Testament times preachers were preachers. That is a big job, and the
apostles told them to select others to look after such matters while
they preached the word. That is a big job in itself. They took care of
the growth of the church through teaching, through this indoctrinating
the people, and all through the New Testament you find that had to be
done. The Scriptures are inspired of God, and are profitable for
teaching, for instruction, for correction; for instruction which is in
righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly furnished
unto every good work. (2 Tim 3:16-17)
The
trouble today is that some churches are growing in numbers in various
ways, people moving in, or coming in from various sources—growing in
numbers, without either the quality or the quantity of the preaching to
take care of the growth, to consolidate it. The growth of a church
requires a lot of plain Bible preaching, plenty of good sound doctrine.
"As ye received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and
grounded and established in your faith." (Col
2:6-7) Some people are not
rooted and grounded. They are just up in the air, roaming the skies,
falling for any fool notion that comes along, because they are not
taught.
Money
The
Jerusalem church had the problem of finances. It takes money to run the
right kind of a church, doing the right kind of work; it takes a whole
lot of money. But there is only one source of income for the church,
only one place the money can come from where God will bless the work
that it does. The members of the church must go down into their pockets
and give it. In the Jerusalem church there was an emergency that
demanded funds. They met the emergency by selling houses and lands and
bringing the money and laying it at the apostle’s feet.
I find
such an outburst of spontaneous generosity and liberality that probably
never was and never will be seen in any other church. They did it not
because of the demands of the law, they did it through the spirit of
generosity. When a man loves the church and the salvation of souls more
than he does his money and his material comforts, he displays the
primary fruits of conversion. Here is the law on the matter. "Upon the
first day of the week, let each one of you lay by him in store as he may
prosper". (1 Cor 16:2) In the II Corinthian letter I find the
apostle, putting emphasis on these matters. Among other things, he said
this; "He that soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he that
soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. Let each man do
according as he hath purposed in his heart: not grudgingly, or of
necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver." (2 Cor 9:6-7)
I never
did like the idea of using corkscrew methods to get money out of people.
If the church has a program that is scriptural, and leaders who are wide
awake, who plan work, put it before the congregation, the members of the
church will give if they have it. If they don't have it, they are not
supposed to give it, and giving is to be done by equality. A man will
talk about fellowship in the church. Fellowship means partnership, and
if you don't do your part of the giving, if you don't do your part of
the attending, if you don't bear your part of the responsibility, what
you have in the church is not fellowship at all.
Discipline
In this
Jerusalem church there was the problem of discipline. Somebody must be
responsible for people staying in line, and it is the duty of the elders
of the church to exercise discipline where such discipline is required.
An elder's character is such that when he approaches somebody who is
amenable to discipline, he knows that what he is doing is for his good,
and not for selfish power or dominance.
The church
in Jerusalem was going along pretty good, and the people were giving.
Barnabas sold a piece of land and brought the money and gave it to the
apostles to be used. His liberality was applauded. Ananias and Sapphira
saw what had happened, and to buy the favor and applause that Barnabas
had won in an unselfish sacrifice in giving, they sold their land,
pretending to give it all when giving only a part. Ananias and Sapphira
were both struck dead. (Acts 5:1-11) You know, if the Holy Spirit
still operated on liars in a fashion like that it might take care of
some of our problems now. But God doesn't settle all of his accounts at
the present, there's a future. We need today to recognize that there are
matters of discipline in the church. I remember a case one time where
there was a woman, and she was a good woman, who talked too much. A lot
of agitation started. One of the sensible, dependable, elders in that
congregation, who knew his business, took her off to one side, and said,
'You're a good woman, but you're talking too much", and he gave her some
good advice. She cried like she was heartbroken. He told her nothing
would be said to anybody about his rebuke—it was strictly private. It
got results. That is the kind of discipline we need. We need elders in
the church that can do that. When somebody in a congregation is
crosswise and are about to get things all in a mess, they need talking
to—and if they can't take it, why, make them take it.
The church
is more important than any one person in it. I've heard of churches
dividing over preachers. There is not a preacher this side of heaven
that is worth that much. You know Paul said, "Who is Paul, and who is
Apollos, but ministers through whom ye believed." (1 Cor 3:5) And
Paul said himself he did not preach himself, but Jesus Christ as Lord,
and a Servant for Christ's sake. (2 Cor 4:5) If there is anybody
in the church who doesn't think more of the church than he does his own
pride, if he doesn't think more of the church of
Christ
than he does his own selfish ambitions, until he changes, or unless he
changes, he has no business in the church.
Discord
There
arose a murmuring among certain people in the church at
Jerusalem,
from the provinces, the Grecian Jews, because they said their widows
were neglected in the daily ministrations. (Acts 6:1) Well,
whether they were or not, or whether intentional or not, that didn't
make too much difference, there was the problem, and the church was
about to divide over it. The apostles called the multitude of the
disciples together and put the problem before them, explained the
situation; and had them to select men to correct the irregularity.
(Acts 6:1-6) We need men like that with plenty of good sense and
loyalty to look after all affairs of the church. When that problem was
resolved in a righteous way, immediately it is said that "the word of
God increased and the number of disciples in Jerusalem multiplied
exceedingly, and a great company of the priests were obedient to the
faith". (Acts 6:7)
Persecution
Then there
was the problem of persecution. Sometimes people think that we couldn't
stand persecution today. I'm not wanting persecution but, you know,
persecution would test the "wood, hay and stubble," and if we haven't
got a lot of wood, hay and stubble built in on the foundation, or
stacked pretty close around it, I'm mistaken. (1 Cor
3:12)
When
Stephen disputed with the Libertines--"and they were not able to
withstand the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spake," (Acts
6:10)
Well, when men that big and that important can't meet an issue, you know
what happens don't you? They determined to down Stephen by fair means or
foul, and they suborned men, that is they bribed witnesses, and brought
Stephen before the council, and made charges against Stephen, partly
true. (Acts 6:11-15) They put just enough of the truth in a great
big lie to make it plausible, and when they made their charges, they
asked Stephen to speak. He knew he had a packed jury. He knew what the
consequences would be. I don't think Stephen was under the illusion that
he would ever make another speech, but there were some men back in those
days who thought more of the truth and the gospel than they did their
lives. We have some men today who are so concerned about their standing
that they will compromise the truth for the sake of their reputation.
I'm glad I haven't got a reputation. I lost mine a long time ago, and
didn't go back to look for it. I propose to say what I think ought to be
said, and what God wants said, anywhere, any time, regardless of what
anybody thinks, and when I change my mind, I'll do something else
besides preach. Stephen stood there and very calmly reviewed the history
of Israel, from its glorious establishment by the authority of God and
under his providence right through the dismal and pitiful history of
apostasy, treachery and compromise, until finally he said, "Ye
stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears; ye do always resist
the Holy Spirit, as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets
did not your fathers persecute? And they killed them that showed before
of the coming of the Righteous One; of whom ye have now become betrayers
and murderers; ye who received the law as it was ordained by angels, and
kept it not". (Acts 7:51-60) You know, they gnashed on him with
their teeth, rushed him outside the city and stoned him to death. There
was the first martyr. That's the way they met persecution. They obeyed
God rather than men and what they could not take care of, he did.
Controversy
The
problem of controversy came up. You know, you can't keep controversy
down among a free people. The Catholics don't have any controversy, but
who wants to be one. One time a member of the rotary club made a speech
on why we heeded a good strong republican party in the state of Texas.
He was from Iowa, a popular man, and a smart fellow. You know now
tolerance is supposed to be a major virtue, even in politics. But old
Bill Newberry was there, an old Democrat, hard as nails, and he said,
"Well, I guess, maybe, it would be all right, but who wants to be one."
There is
no controversy among the Catholics--but who wants to be one? There is
not any controversy where there is centralized authority. In
totalitarian states there is no controversy, but we are a free people,
and we say what we please when we please. They had controversy in New
Testament times. The Judaizers trailed Paul all over the empire, hounded
his every step, and some of them turned up in Antioch and pretended that
they were in fellowship with the church in Jerusalem, and represented
the views of the church there, and had apostolic benediction. Paul was a
nice man, and had the spirit of Christ, and he did things that pleased
the Master, and here is what happened. "And when Paul and Barnabas had
no small dissension and question with them"—no small dissension with
them, that means they had a pretty big row. (Acts 15:2) They
said, "Let's go to Jerusalem with this." Paul wouldn't do it at first
because it looked like a surrender of his own claims to be an apostle.
But in the second chapter of Galatians, he said, "I went by revelation".
(Gal 2:1-2) The Lord told him, Paul, to go, and let the matter be
settled there. Paul went, went to Jerusalem, went with Barnabas and with
certain other of the brethren, and they had a private meeting of those
that were of repute, and came to an agreement on the matter. It wasn't
their agreement. They came to an understanding of what the Holy Spirit
taught in the matter. The apostles and the elders brought the church
together; Peter made a speech, Paul and Barnabas told how the Lord had
blessed their work, and James made a speech that knocked the modern
theory of premillennialism into a cocked hat, showing that if Christ is
not now reigning on David's throne, there is not a Gentile on earth who
is subject to the gospel, or can be saved. They drew up a decree which
was not the judgment of the church, but what the Holy Spirit revealed,
condemning the Judaizers, who were subverting the doctrine, and the
controversy was settled. (Acts 15:1-29) It never would have been
settled by the soft non-combatant spirit that we are hearing extolled
today.
Softness
It is
tragic and surprising how little a great host of people know about the
church and it work, about the plan of salvation and its essential
features. Well, you can't blame some of them. Preachers are partly
responsible for it. I picked up a program of George
Pepperdine
College. A friend of mine was going to deliver a series of addresses,
over there where they are supposed to be educating preachers and leaders
and teachers in the church in fundamentals, and they spend a whole
annual lectureship on love, courtship and marriage. I picked up a
program of David
Lipscomb
College,
and their program for a whole lectureship was on such things as honesty,
and ethics and things of that sort. What's the matter with that? I'll
tell you, a Methodist can beat any of them lecturing on those things.
When the church quits emphasizing doctrine and merely teaches morals, it
abandons the very source of those things—they grow out of the
fundamentals. If a man is not indoctrinated, there is no soil in which
those things may germinate and grow. The church needs re-indoctrinating
and that means positive, hard preaching that will certainly expose and
destroy error in every form. Of course that will be hard on some of the
preachers, but I've gotten used to it, it doesn't make a bit of
difference to me, I like it. When I preach a sermon that somebody
doesn't fall over about, I think there is something the matter with it.
Organizations
Re-emphasis on the autonomy of the church, the organization of the
church, the mission of the church, and the all-sufficiency of the church
in organization is imperative. There is nothing in the New Testament
bigger than the local congregation. The local congregation is the body
of Christ in its community, and it selects its field, it selects and
supports its workers, it raises its money, it runs its own business
without interference from anybody. When somebody tells me that the life
of the church, or even the prosperity of the church, depends on some
institution that somebody has built, of a private character, well, that
doesn't register with me, or anybody else that knows anything about the
New Testament. A man can serve humanity by establishing and maintaining
a school on right principles and teaching the Bible, and he can
contribute a lot to the education and development of character, and all
that, but when he tries to assume that a college or anything else has a
monopoly on Christian education, well, he has the thing backwards. It is
the church's business to engage in Christian education. It is to teach
in its capacity as a local congregation, in its Bible school work, and
in all of its educational program. When I read about the schools
furnishing 95% of the preachers and the elders of the church, well, that
is just not so. If it hadn't been for the background and training that
most of them got in the home and in the church, the schools never would
have heard of them. We need to emphasize the sufficiency of the church.
There is not anything big enough and important enough to overshadow the
Bible place that the church occupies. Nothing that threatens its
independence, or in any way minimizes its importance can be allowed.
Some of the schools have got so big, and become so enormous, with
millions of dollars behind them, boasting of furnishing the church with
this, that, or the other that they are headed into digression. Not that
there was anything wrong with the school idea, in its right sphere, but
it got too big and so important that it furnished preachers for all the
churches, in departments of religion that were hotbeds of modernism and
heresies, and which the preachers carried right into the churches.
That's a matter of history. We are not going to let that history be
repeated, if we have to kill a few schools, or put them in their place.
When a
false teacher threatens the integrity of the church in its doctrine, in
its worship, in its organization, or threatens it in any way, it is my
business, whether anybody else does or not, as far as I'm concerned, to
mark him and oppose him to the extent that he threatens the church. Too
many brethren are putting everything else ahead of the church. The
church gets the tail end of their consideration in time, in interest,
and in money. I hope that some of the things I have said will stir up
some interest and some thought. Let's dedicate our lives to making the
church in our generation what God wants it to be by "Contending for the
faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 3)
Bible Banner – Sept 1948
Other Articles by Cled Wallace