Truth Magazine

By P.J. Casebolt

We are filled with righteous indignation when we think about the way of truth being evil spoken of because some ungodly church members follow their pernicious ways (2 Pet. 2:1,2). And, while the hypocrite argument is used as a scapegoat, all too often there are times when the charge itself is justified (Rom. 2:24). However, there is no justification for remaining in disobedience, just because some children of God engage in hypocrisy (2 Cor. 13:7).

But I have seen people obey the truth in spite of hypocrites and other highly visible obstacles. I once baptized a boy whose father had threatened to whip him if he went near the waters of baptism. I have witnessed uncommon courage on the part of those who confessed the name of Christ, knowing full well what persecutions and hardships would follow that confession.

Still, I believe there is a more difficult obstacle to overcome, both by the teacher and the one being taught. It is the obstacle of trivial pursuit as played by many church members.

I have never played a popular game by that name, and know little about it, but I do know what the term “trivial” means, and I know what the term “pursuit” means. And I know that some church members are playing a game of trivial pursuit.

These members will forsake the assemblies of the church and other duties while pursuing things which are trivial by any definition, and much more so when compared to seeking first the kingdom of God (Matt. 6:33). Some are simply “lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God” (2 Tim. 3:4), while others allow company, vacations, social activities and a host of other trivial things to keep them from their appointed rounds of delivering their spiritual mail.

Such trivial excuses for absenteeism and failure would not be tolerated one minute by our public school system or by an employer. Yet, professed Christians either think that they are fooling the Lord, or that he will just wink at such glaring irresponsibility. God no longer winks at ignorance (Acts 17:30), much less deliberate acts which are ,either pernicious or trivial in nature.

I still remember the picture of Don Quixote on the lefthand page of my elementary reader. He was arrayed in full armor, his lance at the ready, and his steed at full gallop as he charged the hapless windmill. Maybe it was all just a fable, but at least, in his own sight, Don’s, mission and purpose were meaningful. I doubt that some members have any goal or purpose whatever as they follow their trivial pursuits in life.

Personally, I believe that those members who pursue the trivial things of life are more of a hindrance to the truth than those who follow their pernicious ways. Let me explain.

Jesus told the church at Laodicea that he would they were “cold or hot” (Rev. 3:15). You can gauge a thing by a hot or cold standard, but the quality of lukewarmness leaves no means of comparison.

Furthermore, I know what this lukewarm, trivial attitude does to my spirit, and I can hardly be classified as an alien sinner, a novice, or a babe in Christ. Nothing discourages me anymore than this indifferent attitude displayed by those who are supposed to be a converted, peculiar people.

I turned my back on denominationalism, and never once looked back. I have been “in perils among false brethren,” even at times having to withstand the very brethren who taught me the truth and encouraged me to preach the gospel, but I “gave place by subjection, no, not-for an hour” (Gal. 2:5).

Like Paul, “none of these things move me,” but I readily confess that the trivial pursuits and lukewarm attitudes of some church members discourage me more than any other thing. It’s like trying to fight a faceless, nebulous enemy upon whom even the sword of the Spirit seems to have no effect.

I understand more and more why the apostle exhorts us to “be steadfast, unmoveable” (1 Cor. 15:58), and to “not be weary in well doing” (Gal. 6:9). And, if the seasoned soldier is subject to discouragement, how much more the one who is seeking for, or has just recently found the truth?

Once the salt has lost its savor, there is no leavening influence left. Only God knows how many prospective converts have looked at some lukewarm church member, gotten a fuzzy picture of the pure and undefiled religion of Christ, and turned away sorrowfully.

The Lord gives us a distasteful picture of the lukewarm church member (“I will spue thee out of my mouth”), and such a picture is discouraging even to those rooted and grounded in the faith. How much more are those still in bondage to sin apt to remain in that bondage, when they see careless, professed Christians engaged in trivial pursuits?

Materially speaking, trivial pursuit may be a harmless game for those who wish to rest the physical body or exercise the mind. Spiritually speaking, such an exercise can turn out to be a morsel traded for a birthright, or the husks which swine eat, when compared to seeking first the kingdom of God and eternal life.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 2, p. 43
January 19, 1989

By Luther W. Martin

From the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. X, page 657, we copy as follows:

Musical Instruments in Church Services. For almost a thousand years Gregorian chant; without any instrumental or harmonic addition, was the only music used in connexion with the liturgy. The organ, in its primitive and rude form, was the first, and for a long time the sole, instrument used to accompany the chant. . . .

The primitive Christian Church was, on account of external circumstances, very much restrained in its religious manifestations, and the adoption of the music of the Temple, in so far as it had survived, would have been difficult on account of the converts from paganism. Furthermore, the practice of religion on the part of the early Christians was of such a purely spiritual nature that any sensuous assistance, such as that of music, could be for the time easily dispensed with. Nevertheless, the words of St. Paul, even if only taken in a spiritual sense, remind one forcibly of the conception of music in the Old Testament: ‘Speaking to yourselves in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual canticles, singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord’ (Eph. v, 19) (Ibid., p. 648).

Although Josephus tells of the wonderful effects produced in the Temple by the use of instruments, the first Christians were of too spiritual a fibre to substitute lifeless instruments for or to use them to accompany the human voice. Clement of Alexandria severely condemns the use of instruments even at Christian banquets (P.G., Vill, 440). St. Chrysostom sharply contrasts the customs of the Christians at the time when they had full freedom with those of the Jews of the Old Testament (Ibid., LV, 494-7). Similarly write a series of early ecclesiastical writers down to St. Thomas (Summa, II-II, Q. xci, a. 2).

In Carlovingian times, however, the organ came into use, and was, until the sixteenth century, used solely for the accompaniment of the chant. . . . (Ibid., p. 651).

Richard Wagner says a vigorous word in favor of purely vocal music in church: “To the human voice, the immediate vehicle of the sacred word, belongs the first place in the churches, and not to instrumental additions or the trivial scraping found in most of the churches pieces to-day. Catholic Church music can regain its former purity only by a return to the purely vocal style” (Ibid., p. 651).

That vocal music is in general more expressive than the mechanically produced tone of instruments is undeniable.

Religious feeling finds its most natural expression in vocal utterance, for the human heart is the source of both devotion and song (Ibid., p. 651).

The development of congregational singing is of early origin. St. Augustine tells us (Conf. vii, 9) that St. Ambrose

introduced it in his own diocese from the Orient, and that it soon spread throughout the Western Church (Ibid., p. 653).

The Catholic Church was not interested in following the practice of the primitive (New Testament) church, so, she soon accepted the music of the theater. But note two more comments:

Song preludes and intermezzi during liturgical functions are forbidden. The organ must be subordinate to the singing, must support and now drown it. The purely vocal style is the ideal of the Church. The papal choir, the sistine, has always excluded instrumental music (Ibid., p. 655).

The wisdom of these restrictions has been cheerfully recognized by such unprejudiced authorities as Wagner and Beethoven – a fact which cannot be too often stated. The former maintained that ‘genuine church music should be produced only by voices, except a “Gloria” or similar text. As early in his career as 1848 this master ascribed the decadence of church music to the use of instruments’ (Ibid., p. 655).

Next, we copy from Voices and Instruments In Christian Worship, by Joseph Gelineau, S.J., and Clifford Howell, S.J., and published by The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minn.:

Christian worship makes no provision for mere ‘hearers’ or ‘spectators’; each one is an agent and a participator. That is the reason why the Church forbids the use of ‘mechanical music’ (produced by record-players or tape-recorders) in the liturgy (p. 71).

From the standpoint of ritual action, liturgical music can only be monodic and vocal. Throughout nearly ten centuries of its history, Christian worship was in principle, and nearly always in fact, celebrated una voce and a capella (one voice, unanimously; and without instrumental accompaniment, ‘as the chapel’ – LWM) (Ibid., p. 142).

The progress of instrumental music swept the choirs along in its wake, and there was an ever increasing tendency in the great religious musical compositions of the baroque age to treat the voices as self-sufficient parts, like the instruments themselves. Once again the text was drowned. In vain did Benedict XIV recall the golden rule of the primacy of the audible text (Ibid., p. 147).

In Christian worship the playing of an instrument all by itself has never constituted a religious rite property so called. A musical sound which accompanies no words is equivocal; even though capable of exalted spiritual meaning, it eludes the discursive intelligence if it be left alone. Now, as St. Paul observes (1 Cor. 14), everything which is done in the assembly should be done for the ‘edification’ of all (v. 26). What does this mean? The Apostle goes on to explain. Each one may have a psalm to sing (v. 26); but if this imparts no revelation, no knowledge, no prophecy, no instruction, ‘Thou, true enough, art duly giving thanks, but the other one’s faith is not strengthened’ (v. 17). In this case, as in glossalaly (tongue-speaking – LWM), the musician is ‘strengthening but his own faith’ (v. 4). And the Apostle concludes: ‘What, then, is my drift? Why, I mean to use mind as well as spirit when I sing psalms’ (v. 15). Already the irrational meaninglessness of his music is not overcome except with the aid of the logos (word – LWM). But above all, its mythical ambiguity is not eliminated except by the revelation of the Christian mystery. That is why Pius X, before discussing instrumental music, recalls the ‘the music proper to the Church is purely vocal music (Ibid., p. 148).

Music expresses the sentiments, but is not capable of defining them, and without the commentary of words, which are absent from instrumental music, the hearer always remains somewhat vague about the nature and object of the sentiment by which the musician is inspired (P. Lanerre, Philmophie du gout musical [Paris, 19221, p. 43)” (Ibid., p. 148).

On the other hand, Canon 74 of St. Basil (Egypt, 4th-5th century) forbids the use of the lyre to every reader – even, it seems, outside worship – under the pain of censure: ‘Whenever a reader falls into playing a harp, he must confess it (?); if he falls repeatedly he will be excluded from the Church (W. Riedel, Die Kirchenrechtsquellen des Patriarchats Alexandrien, p. 267) (Ibid., p. 150).

Nevertheless the abundance and clearness of the texts in which the Fathers of the Church have discussed the questions can leave us in no doubt about the content and firmness of their teaching: musical instruments are to be excluded from the worship of the New Alliance.

The motives adduced for this prohibition are of two kinds. The first motive for excluding musical instruments comes from the role they used to fulfill in ancient civilization and from their inseparable connection with idolatrous worship and depravity in morals. Even though the lyre could be accepted as respectable, the flute and the oboe were erotic instruments, the trumpet was bellicose and the organ, theatrical. Thus, it was to reject the profane and to defend the sanctity of Christian worship that the Fathers excluded all the instruments in use in their day. . . .

Another and more fundamental reason is developed by the Fathers: the use of material instruments was conceded by God to Israel, just as were sacrifices of animals, as a pedagogic measure to help their religious sense, which was still carnal. With the coming of the Word and the imparting of the Spirit, the worship of the New Alliance consists in the sacrifice of the lips and the heart; it is expressed completely by the word and song. . . Never can the vocal and spiritual praise of the Word of God be supplied or supplanted, in worship in spirit and in truth, by the sound of musical instruments alone (Ibid., pp. 150-152).

The organ, which had been mainly a solo instrument in earlier times, became the usual instrument of accompaniment during the nineteenth century. Pius X ‘permits’ it, provided it does not drown out the voices (Ibid., p. 154).

Any kind of instrumentation which is sensuous or redolent of the dance, which relegates the words to the status of mere sounds, every profusion of timbres which drowns out the voices, is incompatible with spiritual worship (Ibid., pp. 155-156).

From Concilium Theology In The Age of Renewal Liturgy (Vol. 2 – The Church and The Liturgy, Paulist Press):

It is true that the Council (Vatican II – LWM) has decisively reminded us of what was clearly the practice in the days of St. John Chrysostom or St. Augustine, but gradually declined during the Middle Ages, namely, that the Church’s prayer and praise included the voice of all its members and not merely that of a group of clergy or singers (p. 62).

In the East the Church, does not use the organ, and in the Latin Church its use is neither always possible nor opportune in every part of the world (Ibid., p. 122)

Conclusion

From the foregoing quotations, it can be readily demonstrated from Roman Catholic sources, that the use of manmade musical instruments in the worship of Christians, is an addition by men, subsequent to the, writing of the New Testament.

Roman Catholicism assumes that she has the right and authority to make sure additions and changes. Nevertheless, her forthright admissions as to what constituted the original and primitive practices of the New Testament church, provide us with ample evidence, in harmony with the New Testament, as to what our doctrine and practice should be.

These quotations and their sources cannot be denied!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 2, pp. 51-52, 56
January 19, 1989

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