Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

I thank my God upon every remembrance of you, always in every prayer of mine for you all making request with joy, for your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now: being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ: even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace (Phil. 1:3-7).

Just as Paul thanked God upon every remembrance of this brethren at Philippi, we too should count it a great blessing to receive strength and encouragement through our brethren in Christ. We sing a song which says, “Count your many blessings, name them one by one.” It will do us good to count and name the brethren who have helped us to grow and to be better Christians. Recently I reflected upon this very matter and quickly found my list growing longer and longer. In the hope of encouraging others to thank God for their brethren, I offer here some of the names which come to mind as having blessed my life richly – brethren for whom I thank God constantly.

I thank my God upon every remembrance of Brother and sister H.E. Phillips – for their hospitality, spending time with young people, and encouraging gospel preachers throughout the years.

John Sheahen and Lynn Wade – both of whom obeyed the gospel about twenty-five years ago as young men and have remembered their Creator and are raising godly children in Tampa, Florida with the help of Christian wives.

S. Leonard Tyler – for unselfishly giving his time over and over to share the advice and counsel needed to provide me guidance and stability in my preaching life, and for making me more aware of how to fulfill my family responsibilities.

Rossie Brackeen – an aged widow in Athens, Alabama who has shared for years the fruit of her garden and the fruit of her tender heart with so many neighbors and brethren.

Sarah Sammett – a widow who has opened her home near Athens, Alabama to brethren for years and has tried in every way to share the gospel in her community. ,

Bobby Graham and Wayne Kuykendall – we were in Florida College together and then taught together, at Athens Bible School- in Athens, Alabama – their friendship has been a boon and a blessing through the years.

Steve Wolfgang and Dan King – fellow gospel preachers who helped to sustain my faith during graduate school and whose love for Christ is a sustaining force still.

Richard Sweets – brother-in-law converted to Christ by my sister and one who has grown in the work of the Lord through the years.

Henry S. Ficklin (1883-1974) – an aged gospel preacher whose life was filled with the fruit of the Spirit – near the age of 90 he pressed on in his day’s work at a pace which wore me out by the day’s end as we labored together.

Gilbert Savely (1925-1983) – an elder at the Broadmoor church in Nashville, Tennessee who gave unselfishly of his time in printing our bulletin and often encouraged me during the battle with the new apostate unity movement.

Frank Burns – a brother whose burning desire to grow as a Christian and to serve in God’s kingdom has been an inspiration to me.

Roy Cogdill (1907-1985), Cecil Willis, and Larry Hafley – gospel preachers who have helped me learn to be set for the defense of the gospel – men who have given over and over of their time to help me in studying the Scriptures.

Linda Gull – a Christian lady in Nashville, Tennessee whose hospitality, meekness, friendliness, and dedication to the Lord continue to be an inspiration to many.

Harold Smith – a diligent elder and enthusiastic song leader who served for many years at the Knollwood church in Xenia, Ohio.

Mike Willis – we worked together with the same congregation (Knollwood, Xenia, OH) for four years and never had a cross word. His dedication to the truth and his personal friendship draw me closer to the Lord.

Randy Harshbarger – a brother-in-law who has disciplined himself and developed into an excellent gospel preacher, inspiring me to try to do a better work in the vineyard of the Lord.

Clinton Patrick (1903-1983) – a quiet, but firm, saint who held up the banner of truth in a difficult and isolated community, Cob Hill, Kentucky.

Walter Murphy – a godly brother at Beech Creek, West Virginia whose dining room table is always covered with such tools of study as an open Bible, a concordance, Bible commentaries, etc.

Kate Johnson – the wife of a diligent elder at Midfield, Alabama and a sister who has endured near constant pain for years – she has attended services when it was necessary to stand at the back at times for relief – she continues to extend the hospitality of her home to Christians in spite of her pain.

Rick King and Harry Osborne – younger preachers with strength and dedication beyond their years.

Bill Cavender and Irven Lee – experienced and mature gospel preachers who defended the truth during the institutional apostasy and who have made it a point to encourage men of a younger generation like myself.

Charley Alexander, James Moore, and J.D. Harris – elders here at West Columbia who are serious about watching for souls and leading the church to sound out the word of the Lord in every place.

Rick Moore – one of many men who support themselves while laboring in the gospel and rendering an invaluable service to churches which would otherwise lack consistent and sound preaching.

Che Halbrook – a nephew who obeyed the gospel and who continues to grow as a Christian in Fairfax, Virginia.

Andy Alexander – a friend and brother in the Lord who gave up his business vocation in his early thirties in order to dedicate himself to the work of an evangelist, now working with the El Bethel church in Shelbyville, Tennessee.

Many others come to mind! I know men and women of all ages in many places who strive to serve the Lord faithfully, who sacrifice to do so, and who are unselfish in spirit. The list could go on and on. God still has his 7,000 who have not bowed the knee to Baal. I thank God upon every remembrance of my brethren in Christ. For through them God mercifully makes provision to strengthen, comfort, and encourage me in the most holy faith. Take a moment to reflect on brethren who have strengthen and edified you. Then thank God for this merciful provision!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 2, pp. 40-41
January 19, 1989

By Mike Willis

On 1-3 December 1988, brethren met in Nashville, Tennessee to discuss issues which have divided us. Above 500 brethren were in attendance at most sessions, with the session on Friday night having over 700 present, according to estimates which I received. The audience was heavily weighted with non-institutional brethren outnumbering institutional brethren from 5-1 to 10-1 (the institutional speaker on Saturday morning said that he did not recognize anyone present). Steve Wolfgang and Calvin Warpula arranged the meeting.

Several speakers of the institutional persuasion made comments regarding their not having recently studied the issues under discussion. More than one speaker stated that he was born after the division and had never studied the issues; another said he had not considered the issue in 20-25 years. The lack of attendance by institutional brethren manifests lack of interest, just as the absence of the instrumental music brethren at the Joplin debate reflected their lack of interest in studying the question of the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship. A few might say, “We are interested in seeing this division healed,” but actions speak louder than words; absence from the discussion, refusal to announce the discussion, boycotting the discussion, etc. indicates that some brethren have no interest in seeing our division healed (at least not enough interest to meet to discuss our differences).

Some non-institutional brethren were hesitant to participate (though some who chose not to participate did attend) in the discussion for fear that this might be a “plains of Ono” compromise meeting. The institutional brethren made several comments about the nature of the meeting being different than they imagined; apparently some of them were expecting a meeting to emphasize what we had in common. To a man’ the institutional brethren made evident that unity could not be had without removing what divided us. As I prepared for my speech at the meeting, I resolved that no one would misunderstand me as wanting some kind of compromise for the sake of union; if I erred, it would be on the side of being too bold in calling for repentance than in being too timid, resulting in being understood as calling for peace at the expense of the truth. I do not think anyone went away from the meeting thinking the truth had been sold down the river.

There were several very obvious issues which divided the two groups of brethren with reference to which I would like to comment.

Bible Authority

Throughout the discussions on institutionalism, the sponsoring church, and church-sponsored recreation, noninstitutional brethren emphasized that Bible authority must be respected. That institutional brethren were moving away from Bible authority was conspicuous then and even more conspicuous today.

Reuel Lemmons called for re-thinking our position on Bible authority. He said that the idea of authority being established by command, example, and necessary is an 18th century manmade rule. He stated, that he rejected apostolic examples and necessary inferences as a means of establishing Bible authority. He related a discussion with a Christian Church preacher who challenged his thinking about necessary inference. Someone had stated that we learn that unleavened bread should be used on the Lord’s table by necessary inference and asked, “Would it be scriptural to have ham and gravy on the Lord’s supper?” The Christian Church preacher replied, “Why not? The Lord’s supper was joined to a ‘love’ feast. ” Lemmons cited this example in his denial that examples and necessary inferences are binding.

Richard Rogers also stated that examples are not binding. He said that we learn the Lord’s will by two ways: divine precept and divine principles. He stated that he had learned not to use the law of God to break godly men. He suggested that part of our problem was that we have spent too much time in Acts – Revelation and not enough time studying the gospels and learning about Jesus.

Bill Swetmon charged that seeking to establish Bible authority by command, example, and necessary inference led to hardline patternism. This patternism led to division. He suggested that the early church did not determine right and wrong by appealing to command, example, and necessary inference from a New Testament. For his evidence to prove this statement, he affirmed that the New Testament did not exist as a canon of text until the fourth century. Other statements were made which implied that “we do many things for which we have no authority.” “Some things are permitted which are not authorized.” Swetmon called for a “new hermeneutic.” His statements were so loose that brother Warpula took 5-10 minutes on Saturday morning to patch them up.

In addition to making such statements which undermine Bible authority, some of these men insisted that we all have the same respect for the Bible. Reuel Lemmons insisted, “Don’t accuse me of not respecting the truth. I resent that.”

While our institutional brethren were telling us that restoration patternism leads to division and were calling for brethren were very divided. Johnny Ramsey, Roy Lanier, and Stafford North were more nearly in agreement with noninstitutional brethren than with Bill Swetmon, Reuel Lemmons, Randy Mayeaux, and Richard Rogers. There was wide divergence in thinking among institutional brethren. On the other hand, I did not perceive one speaker expressing disagreement with another speaker (even with regard to the judgment of how to persent his material) among noninstitutional brethren. There existed the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace which our liberal brethren were saying could not be attained by those advocating patternism.

The emphasis on book, chapter, and verse preaching appears to be gone from our liberal brethren. Passages such as 2 John 9-11 were being reinterpreted to allow a broader fellowship. Indeed, the concept of Bible authority is an area for concern, standing in the way of unity between brethren.

Work of the Church

A second area of concern pertains to the work of the church. All were agreed that the church could be involved in the works of evangelism, edification and benevolence. All agreed that the church has an obligation to provide for public worship. Beyond this, however, agreement ended.

The institutional brethren were divided among themselves regarding the work of the church. Some seemed rather concerned about the “liberalism” of others pertaining to the work of the church and made statements indicating that the work of the church was not involvement in business, politics, and recreation. Others used the life of Jesus as a pattern of ministering to the outcasts of society, calling for ministering to the felt needs of men. So long as evangelism of the lost is the goal, churches could build medical missions, gymnasiums, kitchens, job placement centers, and day care facilities.

The recent article (November 1988) by F. Furman Kearley, editor of Gospel Advocate, was cited by several to show the institutional mindset regarding the mission of the church. He wrote,

The church may assist with child day care centers, Christian schools, Christian camps and other expedient means that provide an opportunity to save souls.

Institutional brethren’s involvement in works other than evangelism, edification, and benevolence was boldly defended by

Randy Mayeaux and others. Calvin Warpula stated that “binding the brokenhearted” involves the church in building day care centers, schools, unwed mothers homes, etc., but he assured us that this was not the social gospel. These works were not only authorized by the Scriptures, they were demanded by the pattern of Jesus’ ministry to social outcasts. Despite their denials, this is the social gospel.

Whatever will make the church grow is justified in the minds of liberal brethren. Lewis Hale compared buying an advertisement in a newspaper to buying Kentucky Fried Chicken to draw a crowd. One’s motive would determine whether or not one’s action pleased God, he affirmed.

Congregational Autonomy

Another concept which divided us as brethren centers around congregational autonomy. Reuel Lemmons charged that we have made a fetish out of the doctrine of congregational autonomy. Calvin Warpula cited Acts 9:31 as evidence of a religional collectivity of churches.

Beginning with the acceptance of the sponsoring church form of church organization, the institutional brethren have accepted mother churches overseeing mission works. Now the Boston movement has blossomed among them. Defenses are being made of one eldership over all of the churches in an area, pillar churches overseeing the work in sections of the nation, and other forms of centralization of organization. In this context, brother Lemmons affirms that we have erred in making a fetish of autonomy. The institutional brethren seem to be unsettled with regard to just how much centralization is acceptable.

Fellowship

Several broad appeals for fellowship were expressed throughout the session by institutional brethren. Indeed, brother Warpula made this a repeated point of emphasis in his remarks. “Anywhere God has a child, I have a brother.” We were encouraged to be tolerant of each other. Fellowship of doctrinal errors was justified on the basis that Paul called the Corinthians “brethren” even though they denied the resurrection. (1 Cor. 15:33 specifically called on the Corinthians to break fellowship with those who denied the resurrection.) Things learned from inference and deduction could not be made tests of fellowship, one affirmed. Some were obviously ready to extend the hands of fellowship to those in the Independent Christian Church fellowship.

Conclusion

These conclusions seem evident to me from this meeting: (a) There is no such thing as a little liberalism. The denial of Bible authority in one area leads to rejection of God’s word in other areas. (b) Liberal churches are rapidly moving into the mainstream of Protestant denominationalism. (c) Liberal churches are divided, with the middle road “new anti’s” taking shape.

The “new anti’s” are in a sad position. Men such as Johnny Ramsey, Roy Lanier, and Stafford North looked most inconsistent of all. They charged that church support of human institutions is sinful (these brethren believe that orphan homes must be placed under elderships), but they do not believe that this sin breaks one’s fellowship with God or brethren. I would like to make another appeal to these brethren to renounce all church support of human institutions, involvement of the church in works not authorized in the Bible, and join us in standing opposed to all forms of liberalism.

Finally, I would like to publicly express appreciation to Steve Wolfgang and Calvin Warpula for arranging the study session. I cannot doubt that good comes from such sessions and stand ready to participate again whenever the opportunity is presented. Truth has nothing to fear from rinvestisationl Wherein I do not have the truth, I want it. I stand willing to renounce anything I preach or practice which is not authorized of God and for that reason, I stand ready to hear my brethren tell me wherein I am wrong.

I am thankful that I was permitted to participate in this session. I am even more thankful for those preachers younger than me who got to witness first hand what liberalism has done to the church. What they saw win be remembered much longer than what someone might tell them is occurring. Many came away from the meeting committed anew to preaching only what is authorized of God.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 2, pp. 34, 53-54
January 19, 1989

By Ken Weliever

“I have tried to examine in the New Testament, and in the Old Testament, the great preaching of both the prophets of the Old and the apostles and evangelists of the New. And if I am asked to condense into words the essentials of a sermon, I do it with these three: Truth, Clarity, Passion.”

There seems to be a great deal of interest among brethren today concerning preaching style, methods, selection of topics, manner, and demeanor in presentation. If I may add one more article to the increasing number addressing this issue, it seems to me that the famed expositor and Bible teacher, G. Campbell Morgan, in the above quote, provided the best and briefest summary of the essentials of a sermon that I have ever heard. Both preachers and hearers may profit from this study.

Truth

Jesus said, “Sanctify them through thy Word, thy Word is truth” (Jn. 17:17). Jesus is the epitome and essence of this truth (Jn. 14:6) It was this truth into which the Holy Spirit guided the apostles (Jn 16:13). The apostle Paul based his preaching on the truth of Christ (1 Tim. 2:7).

Any sermon today that is of benefit to its hearers must be Bible-based, Christ-centered and Spirit-filled. We must give book, chapter and verse for all we say. Let us “speak where the Scriptures speak and be silent where the Scriptures are silent.” May we forever hold high the blood-stained banner of Jesus Christ.

Of course, no one has any corner of the commodity of truth. Truth is truth regardless of who says it. I have heard and read from some denominational preachers who spoke the truth on certain issues. Was it any less the truth because of , the one who issued it?

In preaching, our conclusions and applications must be based on truth. They must be in harmony with every Bible principle. Are we in the midst of a time when we have a host of so-called conservative preachers who are not preaching the truth any more? We hope not. But if we are, who are these “silver-tongued” men who have changed the truth of God into a lie and worship and serve the creature more than the Creator? Let them cease and desist from their wily ways. We must be firm in our conviction that God’s Word is Truth and that we indeed have “everything that pertains to life and godliness.”

Clarity

Truth needs to be preached in clear, concise, and concrete terms. The late James P. Miller once told me about a lady who thought “her preacher” was great. Brother Miller said, “I didn’t think he was all that hot, so I asked her ‘Why do you think he’s so great?… The unsuspecting sister replied, “Oh, he’s so intelligent. Why, you can only understand about every fourth word!” Brethren, that’s no compliment to a preacher. Brother Hailey used to tell us preacher boys, “Jesus said to feed my sheep, not feed my giraffes.” Let’s put it down where the people can understand what we are saying.

When Peter preached on Pentecost, his pointed sermon pricked the hearts of those who cried, “Men and brethren what shall we do?” (Acts 2:47) There was no misunderstanding Paul in Philippi when he was put in prison for preaching Christ (Acts 16). Today we need more plain and pointed preaching that will penetrate and pierce the hearts and minds of our hearers.

I have heard some good men preach the truth, but the message was not very clear. It was hard to understand their point. I had a problem in seeing what application was to be made in my life. Of course, someone may say, “Well, Weliever is so simple – that’s the problem.” Maybe. But I’m reminded of another preacher who advised me – “if you put the hay down where the calves can reach it, the cows won’t have any trouble either.”

We need to be more like Paul who, though a learned man, wrote and preached in a way “where when ye read, ye can understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:4). Our job is to help people “understand what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17). When we preach, let’s be like Ezra and “read distinctly, give the sense and cause them to understand” (Neh. 8:8).

Yes, we need the truth preached. But it needs to be preached in a way that is spiritually edifying, not just the reading of a collection of Scriptures. Preaching the truth must involve a clear exposition and explanation of the passage with a practical application to the lives of those listening.

Passion

In world where it is cool to be aloof and indifferent, we need proclaimers of the gospel to be passionate and persuasive in their preaching. We are all different in our style, preaching technique and manner of presentation. But that’s no excuse for preaching that is dull, dry and dreary. Someone said, “I preach as if I never should preach again, and as a dying man to dying men.” Or as William McPhail put it, “The best cure for sleeping sickness in the pew is some soul stirring preaching from the pulpit.”

I am not talking about being loud or shouting people down. I have heard some quiet spoken men who obviously felt very deeply about the topic they were teaching and who communicated the truth of God to the audience in a very moving and inspiring manner. “To be instant in season and out of season” involves a passion for preaching. “To reprove, rebuke and exhort” demands interest and enthusiasm both for the truth and the souls of those who need to hear it.

I’m afraid we may have some who are like the preacher who asked the actor: “Why is it that you can act out a part and move an audience to tears, while I preach Bible truth and people remain unmoved?” Said the actor, “The answer is really quite simple. It is because I act out fiction as if it were truth and you preach truth as if it were fiction.” Brethren, we are preaching a gospel that is “alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword.” Let’s not limit its power or blunt its edge by a lack of passion in our preaching.

Some Conclusions

I don’t care what label is put on a man – “positive” or “negative,” a “college man,” or not a “college man,” a “writing preacher,” or not a “writing preacher,” associated with “the paper,” or not associated with “the paper,” “big name” or “little name,” refined and eloquent or down-home and country – as long as he preaches the Truth, presents it plainly and speaks with passion, I am sure he will edify, encourage and enliven my spirit.

Quite frankly, I don’t have the time or inclination to decide what topics or texts my preaching peers need to address in meetings or in local churches. Time, circumstance, moral problems, local situations and the pressing needs of the hour will determine what I preach this Sunday. And it will you too. But little by little and week by week, I will “declare the whole counsel of God” and give the audience not what they want, but what they need at this precious moment.

May I call upon elders and brethren everywhere to demand of those of us who preach to teach the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; to make it easy to understand; and to do it in a way that will inspire motivate and challenge each one to become all that God wants him to be.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 2, pp. 35-36, 55
January 19, 1989

By Lewis Willis

Art Linkletter, noted author, lecturer and television personality, gained much of his fame telling the funny things that kids said and did. His name became a household word. Most people readily identified the source of many of those funny things kids said and did. They came from parents! For some reason the silliness of the parents was funny when coming from a child. The kids haven’t been talking about it on television yet, but their parents have recently done something silly and it would be funny if it did not reflect a deteriorated sense of values in our country.

A few years ago the Coca-Cola Company changed their soft drink formula and started marketing the “new Coke.” The sweeter formula, their research showed, was just the thing the American people wanted. However, the change created national indignation. Across the country protest groups formed in an effort to change the company’s decision. Petition signing campaigns were instigated in most cities. It was urged that those that were dissatisfied call the company to protest their change. Hundreds of thousands of telephone calls were made. The ABC television program, 20/20, reported that one man spent $50,000 of his personal funds in an effort to get the company to bring back the old Coke. The 20/20 reporter did a taste test with this man and his volunteer staff, using the new Coke, Pepsi and the Old Coke that he wanted the company to bring back. He flunked the test. After spending $50,000 of his money, he and his staff preferred the new Coke and Pepsi over the old formula!

After all the furor was over, the Coca-Cola Company caved in and has now brought back the old Coke. The critics won! Behold, how great a victory hath been achieved for the people of the nation and the world!

This entire situation will be viewed by people on a scale of funny to stupid, depending upon their preference regarding the soft drink. It seems to me that there is a note of tragedy that is also involved. All around us we see the startling inroads of sin in our lives which literally threaten our national existence. Murders, rapes, thefts, abortion, homosexuality, alcoholism, drugs, fornication, child abuse and scores of other things too numerous to mention are tearing at the heart and fiber of our great nation. Yet, few people will open their mouths to say anything about these sins and it is unthinkable that we would spend any money to curb their rise in our country. But, change the formula of Coca-Cola and we lift our voices in a mighty scream of protest that is heard all the way to corporate headquarters.

Have our values sunk so low that morality is less important to us than a taste? How can we explain the silence of so many while society, the home and the church are being systematically destroyed because of the prevalence of immorality in our society? How can we explain the attitude and actions of God’s people in such matters? Have we forgotten what God expects of his people – what he expects the influence of the church to be?

Do we not recall that the people of God are a peculiar people (1 Pet. 2:9-10)? Are we not supposed to be separate from the world, touching not the unclean thing (2 Cor. 6:17-18)? And what is this responsibility to shine as lights in the world (Phil. 2:15-16)? And what of all of those passages dealing with the world (Phil. 2:15-16)? And what of all of those passages dealing with that special moral conduct that typifies God’s people (1 Tim. 4:12; 5:22; 2 Cor. 5:17; Rom. 12:1-2; 1 Jn. 3:13; 2 Tim. 2:19; 1 Pet. 4:4, Jas. 1:27; Tit. 2:11-12)?

I was just thinkin’. the values of a people which historically have championed goodness and moral uprightness have indeed “lost their fizz.” However, a protest letter or telephone call to Coca-Cola will not change this situation. It could easily be changed with repentance in obedience to God!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 2, p. 39
January 19, 1989