Truth Magazine

By Paul Harvey

If I were the Prince of Darkness I would want to engulf the whole earth in darkness.

I’d have a third of its real estate and four-fifths of its population, but I would not be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree – thee!

And the old I would teach to pray – to say after me “Our father which art in Washington.”

Then I’d get organized.

So I would set about, however necessary, to take over the United States.

I would begin with a campaign of whispers.

With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: “Do as you please.”

To the young I would whisper that “the Bible is a myth.” I would convince them that man created God, instead of the other way around. I would whisper that “what is bad is good and what is good is nerdish.”

In the ears of the young married I would whisper that work is debasing, that cocktail parties are good for you. I would caution them not to be extreme in religion, in patriotism, in moral conduct.

I’d educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting so that anything else would appear dull, uninteresting.

I’d threaten TV with dirtier movies and vice versa.

I’d infiltrate unions and urge more loafing, less work. Idle hands usually work for me.

I’d peddle narcotics to whom I could; I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction; I’d tranquilize the rest with pills.

If I were the Devil I would encourage schools to refine young intellects but neglect to discipline emotions; let those run wild.

It would take a court order to get God evicted from the schoolhouse but with the assistance of some preachers I’d get that court order.

With flattery and promises of power I would get the courts to vote against God and in favor of pornography.

Thus I could evict God from the schoolhouse, then from the courthouse, then from the houses of Congress.

Then in his own churches I’d substitute psychology for religion and deify science. That way men would become smart enough to create super weapons but not wise enough to control them. If I were Satan I’d make the symbol of Easter an egg and the symbol of Christmas a bottle. I would embrace religion until it suffocates.

If I were the devil I’d take from those who have and give to those who wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious.

I would demand “rights” for wrongdoers until the courts shackled lawmen. I’d let men hide behind a fig leaf of “privacy rights” while they misused their own children.

In other words, if I were Satan I’d just keep right on doing what he’s doing.

Paul Harvey is a syndicated, Chicago-based columnist and radio commentator.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 14, p. 427
July 21, 1988

By Steve Wolfgang

About a year ago, Alan Cloyd (editor of the Restoration Leadership Quarterly produced by the Vultee church in Nashville) made an announcement in that journal regarding a proposed discussion among brethren “divided over institutions and the cooperation question.” He reported at that time that a discussion was tentatively planned for March, 1988, in Louisville, KY. A few months later, that same journal announced that Herman Alexander of the Preston Road Center for Christian Education in Dallas, and myself, had agreed to make arrangements for brethren of both persuasions to discuss these issues. In the January 7, 1988 issue of the Guardian of Truth, I published an article “On Meeting With Institutional Brethren,” explaining my involvement in this endeavor, and seeking to Meeting inform brethren generally about this proposal. Obviously, March 1988 has come and gone and no meeting has yet occurred. Such a meeting is still in the active planning stage, but since several things have changed since the last published reports, I am sending this article explaining the current status of this endeavor to several journals of circulated among brethren. The editors of those journals may publish it or decline to do so as they see fit. This report will probably be more informative if my January 7 article referred to above is read first.

While several others have had positive input into the process of formalizing the details, they have left me free to make whatever arrangements seemed best. Thus, should someone not be pleased with the plans I describe below, I am the one to be criticized. Although there are things which perhaps could be better arranged, I have done the best I could. Some brethren from both sides of this issue have been outspoken and critical, often before they knew enough to be critical about, and sometimes before most of the arrangements had been made! I hasten to add that many more brethren of both persuasions, while expressing cautious optimism toward such a meeting, have been decidedly favorable toward such a discussion of issues which have divided. I want to say personally that I appreciate the willingness of brethren, whatever position they may hold on any issue, to come together and discuss our differences. I have been preaching more than twenty years, and this is the first time that anyone from “the other side” has reached out to ask, “Can we talk?”

Plans have now been made for three days of discussion in Nashville, Tennessee, on December 1, 2, & 3, 1988. In order to provide a “neutral setting,” the facilities of the Doubletree Hotel in downtown Nashville have been procured. This is a quality, business/convention – type hotel in downtown Nashville, and will be able to provide comfortable facilities for those who are coming from out-of-town. These dates will allow us to obtain a flat rate of $45 per room per night, with a maximum of 4 persons per room. (Thus, two people staying in the same room would pay $22.50 each per night; four persons per room would pay $11.25 each; all prices subject to tax, of course.) Occupying these rooms will also give us access to a large meeting room which can be arranged with theater style seating with a capacity of 480 seats which should be adequate for such a meeting.

Just as each one attending will bear his own expense, so each one comes representing only himself. This is not an attempt to formulate doctrine, issue some edict, or establish some “brotherhood position.” Although only a certain number of brethren (about 21 from each persuasion) will be actively participating as speakers, respondents, or moderators, “whosoever will may come” to attend these meetings, to listen to what is said, and to question those who speak. The topics to be discussed will include the following. I am listing also the brethren who have agreed as of this date to serve as moderators (M), speakers (S), and respondents (R). (See below for a description of responsibilities of each of these tasks.)

I am also affixing tentative times for each session (note the stress on the word tentative in the arrangement of these and other details).

Thursday, December 1, 2-5 p.m.

Suggested Topics: Are there “patterns” revealed in the Scriptures? etc. How Do We Establish/Ascertain Divine Authority? What is the role of Examples? of Inferences/Conclusions?

S: Clinton Hamilton

R: James W. Adams

M: Dale Smelser

Thursday, December 1, 7-10

“Overview and Current Situtation” – History; How Churches of Christ Separated and Grew Apart; The Current Situation; etc.

S. Steve Wolfgang

R: Marshall Patton

M: Colly Caldwell

Friday, December 2, 9-12 a.m.

“Collective (Church) Activity and Individual Activity” – What are the Biblical Criteria for Distinguishing the Two? etc.

S: Ferrell Jenkins

R: Harold Comer

M: Karl Diestelkamp

Friday, December 2, 2-5 p.m.

“What Is the Work of the Church?” – Discussion will likely include fellowship halls, church kitchen/recreational facilities, and larger issues of “social gospelism,” family life centers, etc.

S: Paul Earnhart

R: Robert Jackson

M: L.A. Stauffer

Friday, December 2, 7-10 p.m.

“What Relationship Should Institutions Sustain to Churches?” – Discussion including orphanages, colleges, etc.

S: Mike Willis

R: Larry Hafley

M: Dick Blackford

Saturday, December 3, 8-11 a.m.

“Cooperation of Churches” – Definition: What is Cooperation? How May Churches Cooperate? When and under what circumstances?

S: Ron Halbrook

R: Keith Sharp

M: Dan King

Saturday, December 3, 12-3 p.m.

“The Question of Fellowship” – What does the Bible mean by “fellowship”? What kind of unity can exist between separated brethren? On what basis?

S: Harry Pickup, Jr.

R: John Clark

M: Jamie Sloan

Two speakers, one from each persuasion, will prepare in advance and present “main speeches” on each given topic, approximately 30 minutes in length. The respondents will be free to reply as they see fit, each one speaking only for himself. These diresponses” will be allocated about 20 minutes. I realize that everyone will want more time than we can possibly allocate, but I believe that with care and precision, everyone can cover the main points of what has divided the churches over these issues.

Moderators will not only introduce speakers and respondents, but will fulfill an important function as a “questioner” of the speaker and respondent of the opposite persuasion. At some point (probably after the two main speeches and two responses), written questions will be collected from the audience. It will be the responsibility of the moderator/questioner’to select from the written questions submitted the dozen or so which best focus the issue under discussion. Several brethren of the institutional persuasion are at work assembling a slate of speakers, respondents, and moderators from that perspective, but due to various hindrances and circumstarics these have not been finalized at this date. Thus, I do not yet know who will be the speakers, respondents, and moderators from the other side, but felt it important to share what information I do have with brethren to forestall any further misinformation about the meeting. I plan to publish another report on the progress of these meetings as soon as-those names are available to me.

Some brethren have expressed misgivings about this meeting. Some may think there has been enough discussion of these topics in the past. Many would see further discussion of these issues as futile; others, as irrelevant. In many ways, I can understand such feelings. Perhaps further discussion of divisive issues will do nothing to change anything. But I cannot help but feel that dispassionate discourse among alienated Christians must be attempted whenever the opportunity exists. New generations have arisen on either side of these issues who know nothing whatsoever of why brethren have disagreed and divided over them. I do not know exactly what may result from such a meeting, but I am willing to put forth the effort necessary to attempt to talk to others, whether or not they may ultimately agree with my understanding. I am glad to learn that there are others of like mind.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 14, pp. 432-433
July 21, 1988

By Dennis C. Abernathy

The acute need in the world today is respect for the Bible as the Word of God. The ignorance of the Bible is both alarming and appalling. The ignorance of the Bible is seen in the spread of Oriental religions. All kinds of pseudoprophets are on the rise. But God has spoken unto us by his son, Jesus Christ (Heb. 1:1-3), and is not speaking by some guru or self-appointed latter-day “Messiah.”

The ignorance of the Bible is seen in all of the conflicting doctrines that are propagated in the name of the Lord and are believed by a gullible people who should be examining what they hear in light of Bible teaching (Acts 17:11).

Ignorance of the Bible is also seen today in the prevalence of sin. Adultery, homosexuality, drunkenness are rampant. What a disgrace, shame, and tragedy! Evidently people think they can live such lives with impunity, but not so (Gal. 6:7; Rom. 6:23).

I believe far too many people have the idea that they can do with the Bible what they please. It is really the Roman Catholic concept that the Bible is authoritative only because the church declares it to be so. In other words, the Bible is infallible only because the “infallible” Roman Catholic church claims that it is infallible. The claim is that the apostolic writings do not “assert their own inspiration” and were not inpired until the church declared them so in the fourth century A.D. Read the following from a Knights of Columbus ad back in 1955: “Yes, the Bible is truly a Catholic Book. They were members of the Catholic church who, under God’s inspiration, wrote the New Testament in it entirety. It is the Catholic church which treasured it and gave it to the world in its original and unaltered form. It is the infallible authority of the Catholic Church that always has been the only sure guarantee of its inspiration.” Again, hear John A. O’Brien, former President of Notre Dame Univerity: “If she (Catholic Church – DCA) had not declared the books composing the New Testament to be the inspired Word of God, we would not know it. The only authority which non-Catholics have for the inspiration of the Scriptures is the authority of the Catholic church. The church is not the child of the Bible, but its mother.”

Evidently this erroneous teaching (or better put, heresy) has been embraced by many non-Catholics as well. I’m sure you read a few years back about the National Council of Churches new translation (?) that attempts to eliminate what they call “male bias” in Scripture. This was produced by an eleven-member committee appointed by the NCC’s Division of Education and Ministry.

Much of the controversy revolves around such references to God as “Father (and Mother)”; the substitution of “Sovereign One” for “Lord”; and “the Human One” for “the Son of Man.” The committee members at the governing board meeting defended their translation as a document in which “the whole congregation is being addressed in its Scripture.”

But, back to our point. Committee member, Burton Throckmorton, Jr., professor of the New Testament at the Bangor (Maine) Theological Seminary, and a minister in the Presbyterian Church (USA), expressed the following concerning his understanding of the writtern Word of God. “The Scripture is the church’s book. It was written by the church (and) for the church.” He further said: “There’s no reason . . . that I can see why the church can’t add to its scripture — delete from its scripture. I think the church can do with its scripture what is wants to (do) with its scripture.”

There you have it my friend. The Bible is really not inspired at all! It simply says what the church wants it to say. Actually, according to this pernicious teaching, the church is far more important than is the Word of God.

But may I ask: “How do you prove the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church?” Would one use such Scriptures as Matthew 16:18,19 or John 20:23? You could not use the Scriptures because they are not infallible unless the church says they are. So hence, you could not prove an infallible church by using an “uninfallible” Scripture!

But really what Catholicism does is claim and declare the church to be more important than the Word of God. This is why you find so many practices in Catholicism which are not found in the Bible. For example, where is Bible authority for a “vicar of Christ on earth”? Where is Bible authority for “praying to Mary and/or saints”? Where is Bible authority for “the mass,” “the rosary,” a “special priesthood,” “celibacy”? All of these practices must of necessity come from the “living voice of the living church,” because they definitely do not come from the Bible! When people will accept religious practices unauthorized by the Bible, they obviously respect whatever sanctions these practices more than they respect the Bible.

In the days of the Judges “every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judg. 21:25). What is the difference in those people then and the Catholics and Burton Throckmorton, Jr. and a host of others now? They all simply do what they want to with God’s Word.

As long as men of this caliber fill the pulpits of churches, what more can be expected than a gross ignorance of the Bible? It is a clear case of the “blind leading the blind,” with the destiny of both being the “ditch.”

May we ever respect the Bible as God’s all-sufficient and final revelation to man (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3; Jude 3; Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Pet. 4:11).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 14, p. 430
July 21, 1988

By Harry R. Osborne

J.M. Gillpatrick was born on August 23, 1914, and passed from this life on February 17, 1988. The auditorium of the Central congregation in Pampa, Texas was filled two days later for the funeral services conducted by R.J. Stevens and Bob Price. It brought back many memories for me since my earliest recollections are of brother Gillpatrick preaching the gospel in that very auditorium. Of all the debts I owe to older preachers who have taught me the truth, none is as great as the debt I owe to J.M.

Brother Gillpatrick began his life of service to our Lord at the age of twelve when he was baptized into Christ in his home town of Tipton, Oklahoma, by A. Hugh Clark. J.M. did some preaching while growing up in Tipton and while attending Abilene Christian College, but began to devote full-time to preaching in 1937. For the next fifty years, he worked with congregations in Oklahoma, New Mexico and Texas.

His book, Outline of Bible History, has been used in many churches across this country to aid in the study of the Old Testament since its publication in 1964. The companion volume on the New Testament was published in 1987 and is also an excellent overview study guide. J.M. was a diligent student of the text and both volumes are evidence of that close attention to its rightful dividing (2 Tim. 2:15).

Brother Gillpatrick’s influence on my life began even before I was born. He was preaching in Pampa, Texas when my parents moved there in 1952. Mom and Dad had never heard of “the issues” at that time. A few weeks after their arrival, J.M. preached a lesson on the orphan home question. He plainly declared the fact that no authority existed for the support of orphan homes and other human institutions from the treasury of the church. My dad, certain that he could straighten this poor preacher out, invited J.M. over for a study the next day. Dad quickly found out that he did not have any Scripture upon which to base his stand, but J.M. did. He worked with my parents for several years and helped them greatly in a fuller understanding of God’s Word.

As a child, I was always close to J.M. He was the picture of what a preacher should be to me then, and he still is. I spent a great deal of time at the Gillpatrick’s house and loved every minute of it. Katherine, his faithful and devoted wife, treated me like one of the family and fed me the best pies I have ever tasted. Their son Cary was my idol. And when I went to the living room, there was J.M. with a Bible in his hand. I remember so many times when he reached down and picked me up to sit in his chair as he read the Bible to me. Those were special times and treasured memories.

The Gillpatrick’s moved away in 1964 and we left Tampa in 1965. Our families kept in touch until 1974 when J.M. and Katherine moved to Corpus Christi, Texas where I was in high school. False teaching on marriage, divorce and remarriage had just been done by the preceding preacher and the work was hard. J.M. brought the needed stability with his keeping of the instruction by Paul: “and the Lord’s servant must not strive, but be gentle towards all, apt to teach, forbearing, in meekness correcting them that oppose themselves; if peradventure God may give them repentance unto the knowledge of the truth, and they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him unto his will” (2 Tim. 2:24-26).

It was during this time that I made up my mind to begin preaching the gospel. He helped me get started preaching and provided good counsel for the years that have followed. I found J.M.’s teaching and advice to be some of the most valuable I received from that time until he passed away. Brother Gillpatrick had a training class for several of us and offered to help me with a more intensive weekly Bible study. The first time I came to his office for the study, I expressed my desire to study the Psalms because I was unfamiliar with most of them. J.M. launched right into the study with an overview of the different types of psalms, referring to a specific example of each type. As he referred to one, I would turn to it as he read aloud. About halfway through, I looked up to see that his Bible was not even open to the Psalms. He was quoting every passage from memory.

There was nothing showy about J.M.’s memory of the Scripture. It was a natural flow from his lips of that which abided in his heart – richly (Col. 3:16). Our family has commented many times that if every Bible in the world was destroyed, brother Gillpatrick could reproduce it from memory. That attention to the Word came through in his preaching. When people heard J.M. Gillpatrick preach, they went away with a full bucket of Scripture to reflect upon and impressed with the power and clarity of God’s Word.

I have never known a man that more closely paralleled the pattern of a gospel preacher laid down by the inspired writers (2 Tim. 4:2-5). J.M. Gillpatrick truly preached the word. His preaching did not change with the whims of the people. He endured many hardships because of his stand for the truth and refusal to compromise, but you could hear no complaining from him about it. The diet he fed in his preaching was balanced with reproof, rebuke and exhortation. All was done with longsuffering and teaching. If ever an evangelist fulfilled his ministry, brother Gillpatrick did! Those of us who preach the gospel would do well to mark him as an example that we might so walk (Phil. 3:17).

All of us who knew J.M. are comforted by the words of Revelation, “Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors; and their works do follow them” (Rev. 14:13). By the fruits shown in his life, we have confidence in the eternal destiny of brother Gillpatrick. As we look at the effect of his teaching on so many of us, we see that his works do follow him here as well as into eternity. We will, miss his wisdom, knowledge and help, but we hope to be reunited in a place with no death and no farewells before the throne of God.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 14, p. 440
July 21, 1988