A recent editorial in the Firm Foundation mentioned the difficulties that have confronted Ennio Devoto in his efforts to interest churches in the Italian work. It pointed out that many churches even refuse to listen to his report and plans. Anyone that has ever tried to arouse interest in evangelistic work in difficult places can certainly sympathize with Ennio. The treatment which he has received is nothing unusual. It is the rule and not the exception! When it comes to Missionary work, the churches in general are not even interested in hearing about it. The normal procedure is for the churches to just ignore any letters from evangelists who request the opportunity to speak about the needs in mission fields. Occasionally, however, the churches that receive such letters will reply with a "Dear John letter." These letters always follow the same pattern. They are short and sweet. The first sentence affirms that careful consideration has been given to the needs. The second sentence laments the fact that present obligations make it impossible to help at this time. The last sentence commends the worker to the grace of God, expresses hope that he will find help elsewhere, and assures him that the congregation will remember him in its prayers.

On September 17th, I had the opportunity to speak to the church at __________, Michigan, about the work in France. I pointed out the above characteristics of the typical "Dear John Letter" that churches write in reponse to missionary pleas. I observed that (1) if it is short, (three or four lines), the experienced worker can tell at a glance that it is a Dear John, (2) in such circumstances, he can quote the essence of it before he actually reads it. When I returned home a few days later, I received a Dear John, which said, quote, "Dear brother Till: Your letter has been read with care, and we at __________ believe it to be a most worthy work. We would like to have a part in it, but our present commitments will not allow us to. May we bid you Godspeed in the great work you are doing. Fraternally yours.

On the same day that I wrote the church that sent me this letter, I also contacted six other churches. None of the others even felt the necessity of sending a reply. I did not select this particular letter for any special reason, except for the fact that I had just told the __________ church that a "Dear John" would follow the pattern of the above letter. I have several other Dear Johns in my files in France. I could use any one of them, and it would have followed the same pattern.

Here is a question that has been foremost in my mind ever since I started receiving Dear John letters. If each church is already committed to the limit of its ability, as each of them confidently affirms, just where is all of this work being done? I know that it is not being done in France. From first hand observation of some of the other fields in Europe, I know that it is not being done there. Ennio Devoto's experiences prove that all of this great work that we are doing is not being done in Italy. My correspondence with Arlie Smith has revealed that it is not being done in South America. Just where is all of this work being done? Each congregation declares that it is doing all that it can! But where????

Paul commended the Philippian church, because it sent once and again to his needs (Philippians 4:16). This is not the way that we do it. Today, when a prospective worker for Germany comes by the elders decide to give him a check for $50 for his travel fund in order to get him out of their hair. They never send anything to him after this, but when a prospective worker for Italy comes by later, the elders plead financial inability on the grounds that they are supporting the German work.

Quite often we hear this: "We would like to help, but somebody from Germany, or somebody from Japan just came by last month, and we helped him." This reminds me of the man who had seven children and was barely able to make ends meet on the salary that he made. He even remarked to a friend that he would not be able to get by if he had even one more member in his family. Before the year was gone they had their eighth child. But let me ask you. What did he do? Did he kick it outside or give it away, because he was unable to care for it? Certainly not! Somehow this man who was doing all that he could was able to do a little more when the need arose. He kept the child in his family and cared for it. This church could do the same thing if it only loved the lost souls of the world as much as this man loved his eighth child. If we wanted to we could send once and again to those who are working in mission fields. None of us would starve. None of us would go cold. None of us would be in need. God would provide for our needs. Paul said to the Philippians after he commended them for sending once and again to his needs, "And my God shall supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus" (4:18).

The church that sent me the above letter may be doing a vast amount of evangelistic work. This is entirely possible, but I am confident that all the churches that send out dear John letters are not doing all that they would have us believe. Yet they have the audacity to bid us "Godspeed in the great work you are doing." God will have to speed us in this work, because it is evident that the churches in general are not going to do it. This reminds me of the ones that James mentioned in his epistle who told the naked and hungry to "go in peace, be ye warmed and filled" (James 2:16). Churches, when you sit back and do nothing but turn away evangelists who seek support for mission fields, expressing your hope that they will find help elsewhere, you are guilty of violating the same principle. Thus the same question that James asked is applicable to you. "What doth it profit?" (James 2:16).

People, a $500,000 edifice does not mean a thing, except that the congregation that put it up evidently has a lot of wealth represented in its membership. Many sectarian bodies have buildings that cost more than this, but this does not mean that they are pleasing to God. A church can erect a building at a cost of 10 million dollars and still be displeasing to God if it refuses to preach the gospel and care for the poor and needy. Think about these things, and let us quit telling the workers in difficult fields to go in peace.

Published in The Firm Foundation," October 1958.

[Editor's Note: Nowhere in this article did Till say, as McDonald has repeatedly claimed, that he had lost his support while he was in France.]

"Or is God the God of Jews only? is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yea of Gentiles also: if so be that God is one..." (Rom. 3:29-30).

The Jews, accustomed to thinking of Jehovah as a nationalistic God, could hardly conceive of divine grace being extended to the Gentiles. Paul argued at length to combat this idea and to show that the gospel was for all, because all had sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. It even required miracles and the baptism of the Holy Spirit upon a Gentile family to prove to the apostles and other Jews that their nationalistic conception of God was wrong. (See Acts 10.)

Some Christians embrace a kind of revived Judaism in that they by their actions proclaim that God is the God of Americans only—and as often as not, of Southern Americans only. With their lips they would deny this charge, but actions always speak louder than lip service even as the New Testament itself plainly teaches from beginning to end (Matt. 11:2-6; Mark 7:6,7; Luke 3:7, 8; James 1:22; 2:14-26).

If we really believed that the same God who made us made also the French, the Germans, the Italians, the Danish, etc., more preachers would be across the seas than the pitiful 95-100 that are there now. If we really believed that the same Jesus who died for us died also for the Japanese, the Brazilians, the English, the Norwegians, etc., the man who desires to preach in one of these places would not have to become a beggar and a bum in order to do so. If we really believed that the Swiss, the Belgians, the Dutch, the Swedish, and the Spanish have fallen just as far short of the glory of God as we have, we would be putting the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Adventists to shame in foreign missionary work instead of having the situation in reverse.

My family spent two years working in France. We have been back in the states for six months. We want to go back early next year. The churches that sent us the first time made no promises concerning a second tour, although we do intend to contact them. To get our passports and visas renewed and to get us started on the road back to France, we need to find some congregation to sponsor us in our work. Before this is done, the American and French governments will not even consider our applications for reentry. We already speak French. we are already familiar with the French customs. We can begin work immediately in the French language. Will the church where you worship help us to return? Some of the preachers in France intend to return home this summer. Replacements for them are badly needed, but it would require two years for a new man to prepare himself to step into the vacancies that these men will leave. We could start immediately. We shall be glad to furnish references to anyone interested enough to inquire, although inquiry can be made to any of the workers in France.

Because of the acute shortage of workers that will be produced by the return of present workers, we would like to take at least one other family back with us. We would be happier if two or three volunteers could be found, but we would be glad to settle for just one. If you would like to become a fellow-worker with us in France, contact me and let us work together in this matter. I am entirely at the disposal of all interested parties.

Wardell, Missouri

I met Michael Hughes in July 1991 when I was in Sullivan, Missouri, for an oral debate with Challenge editor Jerry McDonald. After the debate, Mr. Hughes and I exchanged correspondence for a while, but that has been the extent of our association. You can imagine my surprise, then, when I received the Autumn 1992 issue of Challenge (a year late) and learned that Mr. Hughes knows all about my past. In "It's Not a Living; It's a Way of Life," which he wrote in response to an editorial that I published in The Skeptical Review (Spring 1992), Hughes said in reference to my missionary activities in France during the late 1950s, "Unfortunately he [Till] ran low on funds and had to return to the states to try to raise funds to continue his work" (p. 2).

Now I would be interested in knowing just how Mr. Hughes happened to know this, especially since there isn't a word of truth in the entire statement. From August 1955 to August 1957, I was sponsored in France by the Church of Christ in Kennett, Missouri. My salary checks ($350 per month) were mailed to me on schedule, and at no time did I "run low on funds." I returned to the states after only two years because of a series of misfortunes. First, I was asphyxiated by fumes from an unvented water heater in our apartment and had to be hospitalized. After I had recovered from this, I was injured in a car accident that hurled me through the windshield of a Volkswagen Beetle. The rearview mirror lacerated my forehead, and the impact with the windshield knocked out my front teeth.

As if this were not enough, the French authorities ruled that my car had been improperly registered. The import-tax exemption on the car, which had been approved by the bureau of registration, was rescinded, and I was told that I would either have to pay a 50% duty on the car or else take it out of France. If I chose the second option, I would have to stay out of the country for a year before I would be allowed to reenter. In view of everything else that had happened, I decided that it would be best to return to the states, and my sponsoring congregation agreed.

At no time was my support withdrawn. It was, in fact, maintained for a period while I was in the states to allow me time to make a speaking tour on behalf of the missionary effort in France. I was then asked by the Church of Christ in Wardell, Missouri, the town I had grown up in, to work with it until I returned to France.

In the sentence quoted above, Hughes said that I returned to the states "to raise funds to continue [my] work," and then went on to say, "This support was not very forthcoming, and in the time between April and October of 1958, the brotherhood saw four different articles published in the Firm Foundation by Mr. Till concerning the subject of supporting missionary work in general and his work in France in specific." Once again, however, Hughes is mistaken. Because of the circumstances mentioned above, I knew that I could not return to France until September 1958, so I was not trying to raise funds for me "in specific." I was simply using the printed medium to address what I sincerely felt was a serious problem in the Church of Christ. Furthermore, my wife was expecting our third child at that time, and it wasn't until after her birth in November 1958 that we began to work toward raising funds for our own return to France.

I did write the articles that Hughes mentioned, but they were written in an effort to stimulate contributions to missionary work in general. If Hughes will check the back issues of the Firm Foundation and other "gospel papers" prior to 1958, he will find that I had written many other articles on behalf of missionary work when I was in France the first time receiving full support as mentioned above. Most of these articles were critical of the skimpy missionary efforts of a church that claimed to be the only true church. When I did decide to return to France in 1959, the church in Wardell, Missouri, continued my salary when I went on a lecture tour to raise support. This time the Church of Christ in Vicksburg, Mississippi, served as my sponsoring congregation, and full support of $400 per month was sent regularly until we voluntarily returned to the states in 1961. After my return, the support was continued for a month so that I could make another speaking tour.

These are facts that can easily be verified, and with this article I am including a letter with the names and addresses of people that Jerry McDonald can contact to have them confirmed. Everyone on the list personally knew me at the time, assisted me in my missionary efforts, and is still faithful to the Church of Christ.

What puzzles me about this entire matter is that Michael Hughes would presume to know information about my past that he couldn't possibly have acquired firsthand. I didn't ask him his age when I was introduced to him during the debate at Sullivan, but I would estimate that he was probably no older than 35. Even if I have underestimated a year or two, he still would have been no older than four or five when I was working in France. How, then, could he possibly know about my personal support situation at the time?

For several months, I have been aware of malicious lies about my personal character that are being circulated in the churches of Christ. The most vicious of these lies accuses me of having stolen missionary funds while I was in France. In some versions of this lie, an investigation into my activities revealed that I had indeed stolen funds, and so my support was withdrawn and I was brought home. This lie is being presented as an explanation for my "bitterness against the church" and my "determination to destroy it." I believe that I have traced the source of these lies to some of the "biggest names" in the Church of Christ, to whom I have written to ask why they are circulating these stories about me. Although they have had months to respond, they have not yet offered any explanations. In view of their silence, I can only assume that they are trying to smear the reputation of an adversary that they cannot successfully deal with in the forensic arena. They have apparently decided that since they can't lick me, they will try to discredit me by spreading lies about me.

To all who have spread these lies, I have a message. Don't look now, but your hypocrisy is showing. You all pretend to be disturbed by the "new hermeneutics" and other liberalizing influences that threaten to lead the church away from the "old paths," but you apparently don't see the beams that are in your own eyes (Matt. 7:3-5). I have yet to debate any of you that did not plead for me to repent and return to the fold, yet you forget that I know the Bible as well as, if not better than, you, and I know that your actions are unscriptural. You rant and rave about homosexuality in our culture, but the strongest denunciation of homosexuality is to be found in a context that includes "malignity, whisperers, and backbiters" (Rom. 1:26-30). Don't look now, fellows, but your own inerrant "word of God" says that you should put away "all hypocrisies" and "all evil speakings" (1 Pet. 2:1) and warns you that "the world of iniquity among our members is the tongue, which defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the wheel of nature, and is set on fire by hell" (James 4:6). James 1:26 says, "If any man thinketh himself to be religious, while he bridleth not his tongue but deceiveth his heart, this man's religion is vain." By his own inerrant word of God, then, Michael Hughes stands condemned as one whose religion is vain.

So repent and return to the fold? Why? So that I can be like Hughes and the other "gospel preachers" who are spreading the lies? Well, thanks, but no thanks. Mr. Hughes said in his article that I "have never been a gospel preacher," and I am going to agree with him. If deliberately spreading lies is what it takes to be a "gospel preacher," then I was never a gospel preacher. Nor would I ever want to be one.