Upon Every First Day of the Week

Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. (1 Cor. 16:1-2)

The authority for the practice of a weekly collection within the churches of Christ comes from 1 Corinthians 16:1-2. As long as I can remember, this passage has been quoted prior to taking up that collection. There are some among us today, however, who have challenged this practice. They suggest that Paul’s instruction only applied to the one-time collection for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem (Rom. 15:26). They conclude that the church need not necessarily take up a collection upon every first day of the week. An additional argument that has been made is that the expression “lay by him in store” does not refer to the collection of the saints in the assembly, but only at one’s own home. I wish to respond to these suggestions.

First, there is no doubt that within the context of 1 Corinthians 16, Paul has reference to a collection being taken up for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem (Rom. 15:26). Paul says as much in Acts 24:17, “Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings.” This was a special collection. However, Paul had deeper purpose; he wanted the Gentiles to show their Christian fellowship with the Jews in a physical way (Rom. 15:27). The contribution is a unique way of showing Christian fellowship with other Christians. This is a point of which we must not lose sight in this discussion. The purpose of fellowship is a purpose that persists through all contributive activity in the New Testament, even contributions not related to the specific occasion of 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 (see Acts 2:42; Rom.12:13; Phil.1:5-6, 4:15; Gal.6:6; Heb.13:6). In other words, this purpose suggests a general schema in which all contributive activity in the church was to occur, implying a persistent pattern of behavior relative to all the churches. The point is this: while the occasion for this contribution was to help the poor among the saints at Jerusalem, the principles being taught in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 were general in scope, and not just applicable to this occasion alone. The frequency of such fellowship is specified here as being upon the first day of every week.

Second, the Greek prepositional phrase par’ heauto is said to mean “at home.” The Greek scholar A. T. Robertson suggests this specific meaning in his Word Pictures of the New Testament. The general meaning of the Greek preposition para with the dative case is “(nearly always of the pers[on]) nearness in space at or by (the side of), beside, near, with, acc[ording] to the standpoint fr[om] which the relationship is viewed.”1 The phrase could mean “at home” given a certain context, but not necessarily. The same prepositional phrase (par’ heauto) is used in Luke 9:47, “And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him.” The words “by him” in this verse is the prepositional phrase par’ heauto. In Luke 9:47, it simply means “alongside of him,” that is, “near to him,” or “in his personal space.” This prepositional phrase is also used in the Septuagint in four places: Exodus 16:18, Proverbs 26:5, 12, 28:11. In each of these instances, the words par’ heauto indicate nearness to one’s person whether literally or figuratively. The phrase has the connotation of something personal, whether in space, time, or manner. Since the phrase is adverbial in 1 Corinthians 16:2, it could be translated “personally.” The suggestion that the Greek prepositional phrase par’ heauto means “at home” is not necessarily warranted.

Third, the context of 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 is of a corporate responsibility. In 1 Corinthians 16:1, Paul says, “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.” Paul gave these instructions to the churches, corporately. The churches of Galatia had been instructed to give, and Paul was giving the same instruction to the church at Corinth. The implication was that this responsibility was a corporate one, and not just an individual one. That is, the church as a whole had an interest in ensuring that the members participated in the collection, and when the collection had been gathered by Paul, the church as a body was said to have given it. The churches of Macedonia were also corporately commended for having fulfilled this responsibility in 2 Corinthians 8:1. How could the church corporately ensure the members’ participation? Simple. As a body, they took up a collection upon the first day of the week, the day that they met for the purpose of partaking of the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7). The Greek preposition kata in 1 Corinthians 16:2 is distributive and indicates frequency: every first day of the week. This practice of the church meeting on the first day of the week was begun in Acts 2. The day of Pentecost was a Sunday, the day after the Sabbath, the first day of the week. This practice was continued with such frequency that the apostle John eventually referred to it as “the Lord’s day” (Rev. 1:10). That the seven churches of Asia (and others) understood which day to which “the Lord’s day” referred is evident from the fact that John doesn’t explain which day it was. The church’s corporate activities were practiced upon the first day of the week (Acts 2:47, 20:7). If saving funds were to be done merely at one’s home, why was this day specified? Any other day would have been sufficient for such a purpose. It is not mere coincidence that the apostle Paul chose this day in 1 Corinthians 16:2.

Fourth, the instructions Paul gave to the churches of Galatia concerning giving were not exclusive to the occasion of helping the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. Galatians 6:6-10 reflects these concerns. Paul’s instructions to the churches of Galatia included contributing regularly to those who were teaching the saints. This is the force of the Greek verb koinoneo in Galatians 6:6; they were to have fellowship with their teachers by virtue of their supporting him monetarily. The present active imperative nature of the verb implies that they were to do this regularly. Moreover, the notion of sowing to the Spirit in Galatians 6:8 also has reference to monetary giving. (Compare the same imagery of sowing and reaping in 2 Cor.9:6 where the context is clearly monetary giving.) Moreover, Galatians 6:10 has reference to giving monetarily, as the occasion arises, to anyone who has a physical need, but especially Christians. Paul is saying in Galatians 6:6-10 that the responsibility of the church is to do this: 1) pay the preacher, 2) give to those who are in need whether Christians or not. I have no doubt that Paul gave instructions to the churches of Galatia regarding the collection for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem, but he gave these other instructions first. We must not exclude any of the orders concerning giving that Paul gave to the churches of Galatia from the context of 1 Corinthians 11:1; the latter instructions must be viewed in the context of the former.

Fifth, Paul did not want to take up any collections when he came to Corinth. He says this specifically in 1 Corinthians 16:2. In fact, this is why he wanted the brethren to regularly give every first day of the week into a treasury. The Greek verb thesaurizo has reference to a treasury of money. If each Christian at Corinth were to put something from himself into his own personal treasury “at home,” when Paul arrived, a collection would necessarily need to be made to take money from all of the individuals who had saved up, but had not contributed to the general treasury of the church. However, Paul specifically said that he wanted there to be no collections when he came. This meant that he expected all of it to be in one place upon his arrival. What better place to keep it than in the general treasury of the church? Hence, the context forbids the notion that Paul was telling each individual Christian to save up money at his own home. Instead, his giving was to be done on the first day of the week, when the church assembled together on the Lord’s Day to partake of the Lord’s Supper, and the contribution was to be put into the general treasury. This was an act of worship, because in giving, they were participating in fellowship (koinonia) with one another as they did so, and thus directly glorifying God by their unity of spirit and purpose. This practice was not limited to the church at Corinth alone, because Paul taught the same thing to the churches of Galatia, Macedonia, and everywhere he went (1 Cor. 4:17, 7:17).

If an individual Christian can say that he has monetarily prospered, then he has an obligation to give upon every first day of the week. Some do not monetarily prosper every week. They are not obliged to give. However, for those who do, regular giving is not only authorized, it is commanded. There is no doubt in my mind that the church at Corinth was being instructed to fulfill a specific occasion of giving in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2. However, there is also no doubt that the principles of their giving were principles that were taught to all of the churches with which Paul had association, in Galatia, Macedonia, and Corinth. The sustained purpose of their giving was to have fellowship in the work of the Lord. Their end result was to support those in need. They did this by corporately treasuring up monies upon the first day of the week that came from the personal earnings of each individual member. It was a corporate responsibility that the church was said to have accomplished. The specific occasion of 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 was not exclusive of any other occasions of giving, and the monies collected were all placed into a general treasury to be available when the time came for it to be used. Those who argue against this aspect of worship that the Lord’s church observes every first day of the week, simply do not understand the concept of corporate giving. Upon the first day of every week, let us regularly give to God’s work.

1 Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Second Edition.

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Upon Every First Day of the Week

How Much Should I Give?

“Purposefully vague.” I hated it when Carl Garner, one of my instructors, was purposefully vague on how many pages we needed to write. I had to make a plan for the last week of the session and needed to know how much time to allow for the assignment, and “purposefully vague” did not help. As a student, it frustrated me; but today I appreciate brother Garner’s wisdom.

Often we try to get by with doing the bare minimum. A paper that needs to be 3-5 pages will usually be three. An article that needs to be 600-800 words will usually be 600. But vague expectations often prompt us to put forth more effort. When we work under expectations and not specific goals, it allows us to set our own goals. If those expectations come from someone we love or respect, we exhaust ourselves to do more. As usual, brother Garner got his wisdom from God.

Under Old Testament Law, God’s children were commanded to give a tithe or tenth part of their prosperity as their contribution to God, “Thou shalt surely tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year” (Deut. 14:22). However, in the New Testament God says, “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come” (1 Cor. 16:2). Hence, a lot of people ask, “How much should I give to the church?”

How do we measure our prosperity? Does it only refer to our wages? What about investments? Benefits? Resources? Non-monetary compensation? Bartering? Once we establish our prosperity, do we give a percentage of it? If so, what percentage? Is it a percentage of our current assets? Net worth? Holdings? God does not specifically say. Maybe He leaves it purposefully vague to see how we respond—out of duty or respect.

Second, we give as we love. Jesus praised the widow who gave all she had (Mark 12:42-44). Similarly, Paul praised the Macedonian churches, “How that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality. For to their power, I bear record, yea, and beyond their power they were willing of themselves” (2 Cor. 8:2-3). A few verses later he reminded them their gifts were an expression of their genuine love for God (2 Cor. 8:8).

Third, we give as we determine, not a result of emotional appeal, compulsion or because someone is watching. “Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver” (2 Cor. 9:7).

Finally, we give as we give ourselves. One of my favorite verses in the discussion of contribution comes from Paul, they “first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God” (2 Cor. 8:5). Why were the Macedonians so eager to give what they could not afford? Because they had given themselves to God. This is the most important principle in determining how much we give. When we give ourselves to God first, we enjoy giving our resources. We push ourselves to give more and more.

I know Christians who start with a baseline percentage of their prosperity. Then they cut their budget to make more sacrifices so they can give more to God. Others decide on a progressive contribution, setting a percentage for one year then increasing that percentage each year until a new goal is reached. These Christians give themselves first, then their contribution.

How much should we give? Everything…at least when it comes to ourselves. Then allow God’s purposeful vagueness to challenge us to ever increasing potential.

Posted in Sam Willcut | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on How Much Should I Give?

Giving As Worship

Paul declared to the Corinthians that they were to give on Sunday as God prospered them, taking up a collection that they would use later to glorify God through the benevolent actions of the church (1 Cor. 16:1-2). In his second letter to them, he encouraged them to become cheerful givers (2 Cor. 9:7). As we approach the subject of giving, we want to look at its relationship to worship. By noting some lessons regarding worship, we conversely ought to see the nature of giving as worship to God.

Learning from Abel, worship involves sacrifice. During the Patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations, sacrifices predominately included their livestock of lambs, bulls, or goats. Other sacrifices outlined in the book of Leviticus included grain. All of these denoted that man was to give something valuable from himself to God as a means of approaching God in worship. Today, we do not give the same type of physical things (Heb. 10:4). Christ gave Himself as our perfect sacrifice (Heb. 9:24-28), but as we approach God in worship, we still must approach Him with this same attitude—we sacrifice ourselves (Rom. 10:1) as we sacrifice our money. Speaking of sacrificial givers, Paul used the churches of Macedonia as examples of those who “first gave their own selves to the Lord” (2 Cor. 8:5). In the context of their giving, he praised them because “their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality” (2 Cor. 8:2). Thus, God blesses the one who gives sacrificially, because the worshipper understands the need to worship God with sacrifice. Contrast this with the attitude David avoided in his desire to build an altar of worship and sacrifice (2 Sam. 24:21). When Araunah wanted to give it to him for free, David responded, “Nay, but I will surely buy it of thee at a price: neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the Lord my God of that which doth cost me nothing” (2 Sam. 24:24). Therefore, proper worship to God involves a cost—it involves giving.

In fact, the Hebrew writer referred to the worshipful sacrifices of Abel as “gifts” (Heb. 11:4). We ought to look upon worship as our gift to God, and thus, our giving as worship. If a stingy person only gives a little to God, he likely will be tempted to think little of his worship. Rather than selfishly thinking of ourselves, we ought to be thinking, “What may I offer to God that will please him?” Consequently, a failure to have this attitude has tragically led some to express, “Well, I did not get anything out of worship.”

Paul stated that giving proves “the sincerity of your love” (2 Cor. 8:8). God does not need our money, but because He understands the severity of the sin of covetousness (Luke 12:15), it is a method of proving our love to God within our worship to Him. By such, I believe we can see a shadow of this principle when the Israelites freely gave towards the construction of the tabernacle (Ex. 35-36)—they gave until Moses had to restrain them (Ex. 36:6-7). In other words, the redeemed heart that truly appreciates redemption will have no problem giving as worship to God!

Our giving in worship reminds us of the giving that God has done on our behalf (2 Cor. 8:9). Jesus sacrificed the riches of glory for my redemption (Eph. 2:4-7). God did not give His Son to die out of pressure or duty (cf. John 3:16); neither did Jesus give Himself up out of pressure or duty (John 10:18; Eph. 5:25). Our giving is a reciprocation of such that praises the Father, Son and Holy Spirit for what they did to make redemption possible!

Therefore, our ultimate purpose in giving is to glorify God—this is what we do in worship. To illustrate, consider the scenario that we had lost everything. Brethren from all over would respond and help us in time of need. How would we respond to such an outpouring of Christian love? Would we not immediately praise God and thank Him for touching the lives of individuals through the gospel, changing selfish hearts into unselfish hearts (Acts 20:35) to sacrifice and help us in our time of need? In 2 Corinthians 8-9, Paul explains that this is exactly what happens whenever we give as a means of worship. The psalmist asked, “What shall I render unto the Lord for all his benefits toward me?” (Psa. 116:12). As we worship God, we are truly able to say, “Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift” (2 Cor. 9:15).

Posted in Sam Willcut | Tagged , | Comments Off on Giving As Worship

What is the Truth About Stem Cell Research?

The numbness and shock refuse to disappear. It’s been over six weeks since the initial diagnosis was made, but life refuses to return to any sense of normalcy. The doctor shared with Tasha and her parents a great deal of information that fateful day, but the only word all three of them heard was “cancer.” As the doctor discussed options, both parents felt the walls closing in on them. The three of them left the medical center feeling as though they were in a fog. Everywhere they looked life continued to press forward, but for them, time stopped when the word cancer left the doctor’s mouth. Looking back, they can’t even remember how they got home that fateful day. It would be three days later before Tasha’s mom called the doctor’s office to ask again precisely what type of cancer was growing in her precious little girl. As the weeks wore on and treatment options diminished, the only glimmer of bright light Tasha’s parents held onto was a stem cell transplant. The doctor felt confident that in Tasha’s case it would be the magic bullet they were praying for. But stem cells? Tasha’s parents were both faithful Christians. Could they, in good conscience, allow their daughter to receive stem cells?

How many times have faithful Christians struggled with a similar scenario. They find themselves aching for a sick loved one, but wrestling with whether or not a Christian can support stem cell research. Likewise, how many times have Christians found themselves with coworkers around the “water cooler” discussing this topic, not really sure what to condone or condemn? By being properly informed we can know not only what the controversy is all about, but we can also determine which side of the debate is in accordance with God’s will.

The obvious place to begin is: “What are stem cells?” Stem cells are remarkable cells that have the potential to develop into many different types of cells. For instance, if someone was injured as the result of a car wreck, there are cells within the body that can be activated to repair organs that might have been injured in the accident. Amazingly, these cells have the ability to divide and be produced throughout the lifetime of an individual. Thus, humans have a built-in “repair system.” [This seems like strong evidence for an Intelligent Designer!] Discovering the ability of these amazing cells caused scientists to speculate on their ability to cure various diseases. Why use drugs to treat an ailment when you could potentially fix the problem with a natural “repair system?” And so, the race was on to see if these cells held all the promise scientists suspected.

While huge advances have been made, there are still some serious hurdles to overcome as scientists try to perfect this natural repair system. The very nature of these cells demands that scientists be able to control their development into specific types of cells. Imagine a Parkinson’s patient receiving stem cell therapy, only to learn that the stem cells developed into blood vessels or a different (and unneeded) type of brain cell.  Also, researchers must continually be aware of the possibility of tissue rejection in patients whose immune systems recognize the stem cell transplants as foreign. The biggest hurdle, however, has nothing to do with experimental procedure, but rather the stem cells themselves. While scientists may resolve the first two problems, they are still left with a major ethical controversy.

The controversy arises from where the stem cells are collected from. There are two classes of human stem cells: embryonic and adult. Where are these two classes collected from? [This is information all Christians should be familiar with.] Currently scientists use stem cells collected from four different sources:

  1. Adult Tissue (including baby teeth)
  2. Umbilical Cords
  3. Aborted Fetuses
  4. Leftover Embryos from In Vitro Fertilization

Adult stem cells are collected from adult tissue and umbilical cords of newborn infants. Embryonic stem cells are collected from aborted fetuses and leftover embryos from in vitro fertilization. The obvious question that most Christians care about is: Can a faithful Christian support stem cell research? Yes—as long as those stem cells come from one of the first two categories. Is there anything wrong with using stem cells that are collected from a consenting adult or from an umbilical cord? When we say “adult tissue” exactly what does that mean? Stem cells have been identified in almost every type of adult tissue, including fat. In fact, researchers in California used the by-products of liposuction (fat!) and were able to purify stem cells from it! (Think about how many individuals would gladly donate a few extra pounds to help with this stem cell research!) So when someone makes a dogmatic statement and insists that faithful Christians cannot support stem cell research, they have missed the point completely. The matter truly comes down to does the research involve the destruction of human life? In these two cases it does not. So can a faithful Christian support this type of research? Definitely!

But what about those cases in which scientists want to use embryonic stem cells?Faithful Christians have no business supporting embryonic stem cell research—even if Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s tears at the very roots of our own families. We must remind ourselves that humans were made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27) and thus, we must uphold the sanctity of life. [See pg. X on when God consider life to begin.]

The media has been extremely effective at conveying the message that researchers needed embryonic stem cells to be able to cure diseases. The common misconception was that we had to obtain the stem cells as quickly as we could—in the embryonic state, before they had differentiated. However, scientists have known since 2001 that embryonic stem cells were not necessary. Research has shown that adult stem cells are also “pluripotent,” meaning they have the ability to become almost any cell in the body. Thus, embryonic stem cells are not even needed!

One crucial point the media overlooks and leaves unreported is the fact that adult stem cells have shown far greater promise in various clinical studies! Yes, the media is quick to point out the “potential” benefit of embryonic research. But in actual research that has been conducted and reported in scientific journals, adult stem cells are more effective! For instance, if you visit the “frequently asked questions” on the National Institutes for Health’s stem cell website [URL: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/faqs.asp], one question is: “Have human embryonic stem cells been used to successfully treat any human diseases yet?” After dancing around the question, and arguing that the field is relatively new, the author notes that while they are “thought to offer potential cures and therapies for many devastating diseases, research using them is still in the early stages.” In other words: No. Embryonic stem cells have not successfully treated any human disease. The site then goes on to mention thatadult stem cells have been used to treat human disease.

Fact is, adult stem cells have already been used in treating things such heart disease, leukemia, rheumatoid arthritis, Parkinson’s disease and Type I diabetes. Meanwhile, we continue to hear news reports about the “potential” benefit of embryonic stem cells. However, not everyone is buying into the “pro-choice” propaganda. For instance, Dr. David Prentice summed it up well in a speech he delivered recently at Rutgers University. He noted:

We keep hearing about the promise of embryonic stem cells, but the claims are simply unsubstantiated. At this point in time there is little evidence of the effectiveness of embryonic stem cells. Proponents have yet to take even one dish of embryonic stem cells and have these cells change into one specific cell, [like] a heart cell or brain cell. Based on experiments to date, it’s not safe to even try and apply them to patients. The bottom line is that our real promise lies not in the use of embryonic stem cells but with adult stem cells. Adult stem cells are today already at work in patients. I can document, through published scientific papers, with over 65 human diseases, where patients are better already, having been effectively treated through adult stem cells” (emp. added).

[Dr. David A. Prentice is Senior Fellow for Life Sciences at Family Research Council, formerly Professor of Life Sciences at Indiana State University, and Adjunct Professor of Medical and Molecular Genetics for Indiana University School of Medicine.]

The answer is simple—embryonic stem cells represent life. Can anyone argue that it is logical to destroy one life in hopes of curing another? Do we value a Parkinson’s patient more than an unborn child simply because we can run our fingers over the wrinkles that time has carved into his face? Additionally, we know that embryonic stem cells are unnecessary, and thus, there should be no controversy. Adult stem cells are already providing beneficial results. Tasha and her parents can rest assured that stem cell transplants using cells from a relative or donor do not violate any biblical principles and their decision to pursue that form of treatment upholds the sanctity of human life. With God’s Word as our absolute standard, the gray areas in many ethical situations become clearly black and white. May we all, with diligence and perseverance continue to seek His counsel.

Posted in Brad Harrub | Tagged , , | Comments Off on What is the Truth About Stem Cell Research?

The Role of Helpers in Evangelism

In our efforts to lead people to Jesus Christ, whether it is family members, coworkers, friends or neighbors, we may feel as if we are all alone in our efforts. Such ought not to be the case! I would like for us to think about the role that others utilize in evangelism.

For example, consider the statement that Paul made: “I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase” (1 Corinthians 3:6). Many times when we use this passage, we show the impact that God has in our evangelism (and rightly so). Yet, let us notice another powerful and necessary lesson—Paul recognized the impact of Apollos in the efforts to evangelize the Corinthians. He knew that he would not be able to do it alone. In fact, he was rarely alone—he was with Barnabas on his first missionary journey, and he selected Silas to accompany him on his second trip. He “recruited” such men as Luke, Timothy, Titus, Epaphroditus, Sopater of Berea, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius of Derbe, Tychicus, Trophimus, Aquila and Priscilla to help him. In his epistles, he would often list others as “fellow laborers,” “fellow servants” or “fellow workers.” Of all of the greatest evangelists in the known church, he would be the first to admit the role of others who assist in evangelistic efforts.

Consider another example, beginning in John 4. When Jesus traveled from Judea to Galilee, he needed to go through Samaria (rather than the usual path of circumventing the disliked Samaritans), and there he encountered a particular woman. Through his conversation with her and the recognition of the fact that the fields “are white already to harvest” (cf. John 4:35), “many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman…and many more believed because of his own word” (John 4:39-41). In all, he stayed there and had a tremendous influence on them for two days. Thus, it should be no wonder that months later, when a disciple of the church named Philip went to Samaria and “preached Christ unto them” (Acts 8:5), they responded with obedience by baptism (Acts 8:5-12). I am convinced that while Philip benefited from reaping the harvest of these Samaritan souls, Jesus had already planted the seed beforehand. Thus, we see the role that others play, even if time passes that might tempt us to believe that all hope is lost.

When Jesus sent the twelve apostles on the limited commission and when he later sent seventy disciples on their own limited commission, he sent them “two and two” (Mark 6:7; Luke 10:1). In this way, they would not be alone. Even the zealous efforts of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons utilize the wisdom of this principle.

What may we glean from this in a practical way? First, let us be sure that we communicate our efforts with others. Let other Christians know of whom we are teaching, so that they may pray for our efforts. If we are successful in inviting them to our worship assemblies, introduce them as honored guests to our brethren, and when our brethren introduce their non-Christian friends to us, welcome them warmly! Remembering their names, if we ever see them again, speak friendly to them. It may even the case that mutual efforts between brethren could lend one family to show hospitality in having the interested student and diligent teacher over for a meal. I would imagine that the more friendly Christians that a non-Christian meets, the better the chance of influencing him with a lifestyle of Christianity that he or she observes.

May all of us work diligently in leading people to Jesus, but may all of us also be keenly aware of opportunities wherewith we may help others lead people to Jesus!

Posted in Sam Willcut | Tagged | Comments Off on The Role of Helpers in Evangelism