One of the oldest methods to attack teachers of truth is to falsely characterize them as preaching only on a given subject. Of course, the subject named by the accuser as the sole topic of concentration is often the same truth upon which the accuser wants nothing at all said. If a person is truly obsessed with a given topic, a quick examination of the record will verify the obsession so it can be rightly exposed. It is never right to concentrate on any topic to the exclusion of all else, not preaching "the whole counsel of God" as commanded (Acts 20:27).
While it is true that some have actually been "hobby-riders," it is also true such charges have more often manifested a problem with the accuser than with the accused. Faithful preachers of the 1950's and 60's have been characterized by some as opposing institutionalism to the exclusion of other truth. Having heard such men during that period, my recollection, and the objective facts of weekly sermon topics listed in bulletins and sermon notes, refute the false charge. Did faithful preachers give numerous sermons on "the issues" of that day? Yes, they did indeed! Did they need to do so given the urgent problem? Yes, it was essential! Did they neglect the whole counsel of God? Absolutely not, and any objective examination of the facts will verify such! This writer learned and retains sermon notes on many topics supposedly "neglected" that were preached by brethren known for opposing the errors of institutionalism. Brother Jim Cope was certainly no "hobby-rider," but I recall his advice to me given on more than one occasion and repeated in numerous sermons: "The three laws of learning are repetition, repetition and repetition."
When one falsely charges that a single-issue hobby exists, though the objective record proves otherwise, we should ask ourselves why the accuser seeks to avoid the topic of objection. Is it a truth not believed by the accuser? Does it expose one's guilt or failure? Could it suggest a desire to compromise truth on that issue? Might it be seen as a topic that will not attract the numbers desired because it is deemed "negative" or unpopular by the majority? Might the objection be evidence of the accuser's pricked conscience as he actually knows he should have taught more fervently on the topic to which he now objects? Only the accuser and God know the answer for sure, but time has a way of manifesting the probable reason for such false accusations.
In the past few years, we have heard the objections of some charging this church or this writer with an obsession or hobby on a particular subject. The first problem for their charges is that the accusers differ with each other about the topic of obsession. Some have said it is "fellowship" while others have claimed it is "creation." Just as strongly, a few profess that we ride the hobbies of "attendance" or the need for more Bible study. Others have affirmed the obsession is "divorce and remarriage," while other individuals have alleged it is really "modesty" or "social drinking" or "dancing" or another moral issue. On the other hand, our denominational friends have protested that we preach exclusively on "baptism," "authority," "the plan of salvation," "the one true church," "the possibility of apostasy" or opposition to numerous denominational doctrines. So which is it?
When considered, the list of claimed "hobbies" starts to suggest a pattern of preaching the whole counsel of God rather than a one-issue obsession. On our web site is a complete list of sermons and articles. If we have failed to preach the whole counsel of God, we would appreciate one exposing what has been neglected. Our adult classes have included almost every book of the New Testament, an Old Testament overview plus detailed studies of several books, and sundry topical studies: "Prayer," "Attitudes," "The True Meaning of Love," "Personal Evangelism,""Evidences," "Wisdom from the Proverbs," "Authority," "How We Got the Bible," "Basic Bible Doctrines" and others. Special classes have covered "The Deity of Christ," "The Use of Intoxicants," "Unity-In-Diversity," "Trends Towards Modernistic Thought: Past, Present & Future," "Homosexuality," "Distinguishing Between Needless Controversy & Contending for the Faith," "The Social Gospel," "Reviewing Homer Hailey's Teaching on Hell," "Fellowship," "The Person & Work of the Holy Spirit," "Divorce & Remarriage," "Building Spiritual Homes," "Moral Issues of the Day," "Attitudes That Hinder Truth," "The Bible & Creation," "Evidence for the Bible Text," "Scientific Foreknowledge," "Bible History & Prophecy," Are There Christians in the Denominations," "When God's Law & Man's Law Conflicts," "The Inspiration of Scripture" and a growing list of other topics as well.
We can warn repeatedly against current dangers and still preach the whole counsel of God. Acts 20 shows us this point. The same Paul who declared the whole counsel of God to those in Ephesus also said, "Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears" (Acts 20:31). Can one truthfully say the South Livingston church or any individual teacher has not ceasing in warnings night or day for three years? To this point, no one has done so, but let us suppose someone would so charge. Paul did that very thing and still declared the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). The problem is not that we have warned too much against present dangers, but that some disregard and ridicule legitimate warnings even when they are less frequent than was done in Bible times.
A few months ago, one critic objected to an announced topic by retorting that he found no need for the class because it was a repetition of things covered before and, as he put it, "I got it the first time!" The critic then sought to put our present practice at variance with the actions of our beloved brother H. E. Phillips, saying that brother Phillips alerted the audience to a new false doctrine and then moved on without repeated teaching on a given subject. It was interesting that the class announced dealt with a subject not previously addressed in our studies, but let us grant for a moment that it was a case of a repeat. Would this make it unworthy of further consideration and at variance with the practice of our respected and faithful brother? If one claims that brother Phillips did not give repeated teaching on a particular error by approaching it from various angles and duplicate articles, he is incorrect. Please examine the early volumes of Searching the Scriptures edited by brother Phillips. How many articles show the error of institutionalism in the 1960's alone? Articles on the subject can be found in almost every edition of the paper. Would anyone claim that brother Phillips preached or wrote only once on the topic of divorce and remarriage, the moved on because everyone "got it the first time "? If so, they heard and read from a different H. E. Phillips than the one the rest of us knew and loved. His article on "The Real Meaning of Love" was printed in May 1962, reprinted in July 1967, and then reprinted again in November 1972 because it was needed again. Brother Phillip's article included in last week's bulletin was printed at least twice. Would it have been proper for one to chide brother Phillips by saying, "I got it the first time"? Brother Phillips dealt repeatedly with Charles Holt's error as well as that of Carl Ketcherside. In the August 9, 1964 issue of the Forest Hills bulletin, brother Phillips dealt with the error of Charles Houser and the Manhattan Avenue church here in Tampa. Two years later, in September and October of 1966, brother Phillips wrote a series of nine articles again dealing with Charles Houser and the Manhattan Avenue church. Was he wrong for doing so? Brother Phillips wrote multiple articles on many subjects that this writer has in his files and is thankful that brother Phillips did so, not assuming that everyone "got it the first time." He understood that some subjects (including present errors) called for multiple articles, sermons and classes. Any effort to pit this church or this writer against brother Phillips in this area is both untrue and insulting. But brother Phillips is not our pattern, nor did he seek to be such. He would surely point us all to the pattern of inspired instruction in Scripture.
Repetition was characteristic of the teaching of Christ and the apostles. Jesus prayed the same thing to the Father three times (Matt. 26:36-44) and the Father did not respond, "I got it the first time." Jesus and His apostles dealt with the same subject repeatedly and such is recorded as approved examples of proper teaching. Three epistles are predominately given to refuting the Judaising teachers (2 Corinthians, Galatians, & Romans) not to mention its refutation in Acts. Multiple epistles and letters deal with the error of Gnosticism (1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Colossians, etc.). Why did Paul say, "Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. For me to write the same things to you is not tedious, but for you it is safe" (Phil. 3:1)? How apropos was Galatians 1:9 following verse eight? If repetition is not healthy in teaching, it is strange that the Spirit chose that means to emphasize the point. Paul wrote the same things to the Thessalonians that he had preached while there (see 2 Thess. 2:5). Why write about the same thing again? What is the implication of Hebrews 2:1 saying, "Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things that were heard, lest haply we drift away from them "? Why give those topics more earnest heed if the reader "got it the first time " with no need of further consideration? What does it mean to put the brethren in remembrance of "these things" (1 Tim. 4:6)? We are to put them in remembrance of the fact that the words of 1 Timothy 4:1-4 will be fulfilled throughout the "latter times" and that we must constantly warn about those things, over and over again. When we do so, some will say, "We got it the first time" and call us bad ministers, while Paul says we will be good ones. The word of God is repetitious in repeating the need for repetition.
As a final thought, we trust that our critics will cease forevermore their objections to the need for repeated teaching on subjects of particular need or danger. After all, if they repeat their objections, they have violated their own rule and we can merely smile and remind them, "We got it the first time!"