Truth Magazine

By O. C. Birdwell, Jr.

Most of the problems that exist in the religious world are with us as a result of people following after men. The practice is not new, nor confined to this century. Men in ages past have turned unto man for instruction and guidance even when God’s will was revealed and plain. One such individual was a young prophet (1 Kings 13) who came out of Judah unto Bethel and cried out against Jeroboam and the altar saying, “Behold, the altar shall be rent, and the ashes that are upon it shall be poured out.” Later, when Jeroboam invited the prophet unto his house to refresh himself, we learn that God had commanded his servant saying, “Eat no bread, nor drink water nor turn again by the same way that thou camest.” Since the young prophet related this to Jeroboam, we know that he clearly understood God’s command; and that the command was explicit. Is it possible to disobey a command so simple and plain? Yes, it was then, and it is now. Especially is this true if we depend upon and follow the false instructions and leadership of man, as did this young prophet. After he left Jeroboam, and old prophet approached him with the impressive story that an angel appeared to him with instructions that would change God’s previous commands. The young prophet believed the old man was speaking the truth (possibly because the man was old, claimed to be an old prophet, and seemed pious and truthful), went back to Bethel with him, ate and drank there, and died as a result of following man and not God.

In 1 Corinthians 11:1, the apostle Paul admonishes, “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.” Again he says, “If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Gal. 1:9.) The gospel Paul preached was the gospel of Christ, and Paul would have man accept and follow that gospel although the one preaching it might be a castaway and lost. If Paul’s wishes were heeded there would be no splits and divisions in religion, but all would be able to understand and obey the Bible alike because they would follow no man but Jesus, and defend no doctrine except the doctrine of Christ. But Paul’s instructions have not been heeded; therefore many doctrines are preached, many men are followed in religious matters, and God is displeased.

Having seen that God is displeased when men reject His commands, and that the New Testament forbids our following after man, let us consider some men who have been followed and the resulting conditions.

The German Reformation of the sixteenth century was largely due to the work of one man–Martin Luther. Others of lesser repute played a tireless role, and much was done prior to Luther’s time that laid the groundwork for him and greatly aided his efforts. Yet, very little visible progress was made until ninety-five propositions for discussion were placed by Luther on the door of the church building in Wittenburg. All who oppose the dominance and false teaching of the Roman Catholic Church should appreciate Luther’s work. Indeed he was a great and noble character. But does this mean that Luther ought to be followed in religion? In rebellion against Catholic totalitarian power, many did not go back to the New Testament and follow Christ, but they concluded that Luther was such a great man and had done so much for them that they would follow him instead. Of course, in following Luther they thought they were following Christ; but apparently they did not take enough time thoroughly to examine the scriptures to see if such was the case. Even Luther, in formulating his belief, did not go directly to the scriptures, but he depended on Augustine (354-430 A.D.), an uninspired man, more than any other individual. This placed at least two men and their own private interpretations between followers of Luther and the teaching of Christ. The result has been that in our day millions, while protesting Catholic sin and corruption, are far from New Testament Christianity. Following Luther’s leadership they teach faith only, a doctrine that is foreign to the New Testament, and hold many other positions that are just as contrary to the scriptures. If men had looked beyond Luther to the inspired scriptures, this problem would not exist.

Another great man to whom we are much indebted is Alexander Campbell. Campbell lived in the nineteenth century and possibly as much or more, than any other man was responsible for the preaching of the pure gospel during the first half of that century. As was the case with Luther, many thought Campbell was so scholarly and such a Bible student that whatever position he took must be right. A case in point is the missionary society of 1849. At least on some occasions prior to the forming of this human organization to do the work of the church, Campbell had pleaded for the all-sufficiency of the church to do its work. This would, of course, exclude human organizations such as the missionary society. Campbell, nevertheless, accepted the presidency of the society and promoted its use and growth. That many accepted the society solely because Campbell thought it was right is not doubted. Where are the men today who have followed Campbell and his associates? After the missionary society came instrumental music, and the parade of one false practice after another, all introduced by the same authority–some man said. “I like this and if you follow me and have fellowship with me you must accept it.” Look at the liberal Christian churches of today and you will see the results.

It has already been suggested that the practice of following men is not confined to one century. The young prophet r ejected God and followed the old prophet; men followed Luther instead of Christ: Christians of the century just past depended on Campbell for guidance instead of the Word of God. The same thing is happening today with the same sad and lamented results. Men seem to hold positions on vital Bible subjects merely because some preacher, elder friend or relative happens to see it that way. God has ever been displeased with such and the results have always been chaotic. Examples that follow show this to be true.

Division exists among some churches of Christ today because of Carl Ketcherside’s new doctrine (many others are also teaching it) that there are Christians in all the denominational bodies, and that we should ‘fellowship” them all. If these brethren had not been following Ketcherside on other matters, and had not exalted him to a position of ruler and giver of the law, there would be no special problem with his liberalism. People would simply study the scriptures, see that what he is teaching is false, and reject it. The same would be true of others.

In 1938, E. R. Harper said: “A congregation has no right to build anything larger than it is able to support….” Many con1gregations that believed this then would under no circumstances allow it to be taught now. Why? Obviously because brother Harper has changed positions and they are followers of Harper. Consequently, they reject the truth that he taught in 1938 because he has rejected it, and freely accept false teaching for the same reason.

In 1939, Guy N. Woods said: “This writer has ever been unable to appreciate the logic of those who affect to see grave danger in Missionary Societies, but scruple not to form a similar organization for the purpose of caring for orphans and teaching young men to be gospel preachers. ” Some of the same people who believed this and allowed it to be taught then have spasms when the same thing is taught now. Why? Because Guy Woods and others teach exactly opposite to what was taught in 1939, and men are following Woods and other preachers rather than the Bible. The result has been contention, division, heartache, and possibly the loss of souls for eternity.

The only hope for man is to look beyond present day religious teachers. Campbell. Luther, and all other men who may have been great, unto Jesus, “the author and finisher of our faith;” follow His New Testament, speak where it speaks, remain silent where it is silent, obey every command, and enjoy the blessed promises after awhile. This is my prayer for all people.

Truth Magazine VI: 11, pp. 9-10
August 1962

By Johnie Edwards

“Now there was a God came to present day when the sons of themselves before the Lord, and Satan also a m o n g them.” (Job 1:6) Satan never passes up an opportunity to do his work. He came among the twelve apostles. “T h e n entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.” (Luke 22: 3.) Satan can do his work more effectively when he comes among people.

I would like for us to notice some instances when Satan came among people and to notice some applications.

(1) He Came Among Adam and Eve in the Garden:

After God had placed man in the Garden of Eden with the responsibility of dressing and keeping the garden and with the restriction of not eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil lest death come, Satan came among them and said, “Ye shall not surely die.” (Gen. 3:4.) Anytime God makes His will known to man, Satan is there to tell man the very opposite.

(2) Satan Came When Christ Was Baptized:

The baptism of Jesus is recorded in Matthew 3:13-16. “Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.” (Matt. 4:1.) Surely the devil does not pass up the opportunity of coming among those who have just been baptized. He tries to make them concerned with the cares of this life. He sets them to criticizing instead of hearing to profit. He tries to cool down their ardor, abate their love, chill their praise, freeze their prayers and kill their zeal. Satan likes a “sleeping church.” It’s his business to rock the cradle, hush all noise and drive away even a fly which might light upon the sleeper’s face.

(3) When the Gospel of Christ Is Preached:

In the parable of the sower, Satan is pictured as coming among the wayside hearers. “Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.” (Luke 8:12.) Satan comes among people whenever the gospel is being preached and tries to steal the word away. He tries to get folks to question the word of God. For he knows that, “They that gladly received his word were baptized…” (Acts 2:41.)

(4) Satan Came Among Ananias and Sapphira:

Ananias with Sapphira sold a possession. Then Satan came among them. “But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled shine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?” (Acts 5:3.) When Christians get ready to give to the Lord’s work, what better time for Satan to come among them? If he can get us to think the Lord’s work is not very important and that we can get by without giving very much, then Satan has us going his way.

(5) When the Truth Is Preached About:

(a) The name we must wear. When it is pointed out that we must wear the name Christian, (Acts 11:26, 26:28; I Pet. 4:16), Satan comes among people and tells them, “There is nothing in a name.” Many believe him.(b) The church. When people are taught that they must be a member of the Lord’s church to be saved, (Acts 2:47; Eph. 5:23), Satan comes among them and says, “One church is just as good as another.” And many are deceived.(c) The Plan of Salvation. When men are taught to hear the word, have faith, repent of their sins, confess their faith, be baptized and live a faithful life, (Mark 16: 16, Acts 2:38), Satan comes among them and says, “You don’t have to be baptized to be saved.” Many take his advice.We need constantly be on guard against Satan. ” …for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. There it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as ministers of righteousness….” (2 Cor. 11:14-15)

Lest Satan come among us and deceive us, let’s remember the advice given by Peter, “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.” (I Pet. 5:8.)

Truth Magazine VI: 11, pp. 8-9
August 1962

By Cecil Willis

In the immediately preceding article you have seen the announcement concerning several changes to be made in the personnel and publication of TRUTH MAGAZINE. From the beginning of my acquaintance with TRUTH MAGAZINE, I have been enthusiastic about its publication. Its staff of writers has been an imposing one. Those brethren immediately connected with its publication have been men of repute among faithful brethren. The physical make-up of the paper has been unexcelled. Its content has been outstanding; its leadership, excellent.

Commendation of Past Publishers

Were it not due to an urgent press of other matters demanding the attention of Brother Bryan Vinson, Jr., I completely would be unwilling to accept the responsibility of editing the paper. It is my considered opinion that Brother Vinson, with his associates, has done a splendid work in the publishing of the paper during the past more than five years. I am not presumptuous to think that I shall do a better job than has been done thus far. However, I freely do pledge myself to the task of doing the best work of which I am capable as editor of the paper.

Brother Bryan Vinson, Jr. has surrounded himself with some able helpers in the persons of Leslie Diestelkamp, Gordon Pennock, Ray Ferris, Foy Vinson, and Bryan Vinson, Sr. These brethren largely have borne the load of publishing the paper till now. I was explicit in stating my refusal to assume the duties as editor if my doing so meant the loss of the help of any of these men. I am acutely aware of my inability to make TRUTH MAGAZINE a successful effort by my efforts only. Hence, my insistence that the men responsible for its publication in the past continue to give their aid. I already have asked and shall ask other men who are both “faithful” and “able” (2 Tim. 2:2) to help in this work.

It is a real pleasure to have the anticipated close association with William Wallace in this undertaking. The name “Wallace” is a significant one in our generation. But William’s reputation is not built around the lustre of his family name. He has made a reputation for himself, both as a direct and forceful preacher and as an excellent writer. It is my intention that William and I shall share equally in the responsibility of producing this paper, though formally he shall serve as “associate editor” and I as “editor.”

Paper to Relocate

TRUTH MAGAZINE feels that it has a place to fill which is peculiarly its own. It does not consider itself to be in competition with other good religious journals published by faithful brethren. We have no hesitancy to commend to you the GOSPEL GUARDIAN, the PRECEPTOR, SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES or any other good journal published by faithful brethren. However, since these three journals just mentioned are published in Texas and Florida, we hardly see how there could be any “conflict of interest” with TRUTH MAGAZINE, which has always been published here in the North.

Since Brother Wallace and I have assumed the obligations of publishing and editing the paper, we have decided to move it to Akron, Ohio. I now live in Akron, and Brother Wallace shortly shall return to the state of Ohio to work. These factors have led us in making the decision to move the paper to Akron, along with the fact that there are few, if any, cities where the membership of the churches would be more favorably disposed toward a publication such as TRUTH MAGAZINE than Akron.

Editorial Policy

A paper must have some editorial policy. However, the editorial policy of a paper does not necessarily change with the changing of editors. TRUTH MAGAZINE’S editorial policy has been one best described as “open forum” style. This simply means that the editor has not taken upon himself the shocking responsibility of becoming a brotherhood censor, as have some editors of other journals. Brother Vinson rather freely has permitted articles to be printed that expressed sentiments with which he was not in agreement. We shall continue to do likewise. Therefore, each writer shall be responsible only for those articles bearing his name. The simple fact that I shall insert an article in the paper shall not alone be taken as indication that I concur with every point expressed therein. However, should you care to know my sentiment regarding a point expressed in an article, it’s yours for the asking! It shall be our intention to be “fair,” with every import of that term.

While we shall accept articles with which we are not in agreement, this is not to be taken to imply that TRUTH MAGAZINE shall constitute a medium through which every “crackpot” or chronic “rabble-rouser” in the brotherhood shall have opportunity to let off steam. There is such a thing as editorial responsibility!

In substance: We have liked the editorial policy of TRUTH MAGAZINE thus far, and shall do our best to maintain its high standards of the past. We are not deluded in thinking that we shall please everyone. We have no illusion that even good, faithful brethren shall feel that in every instance did we exercise the best judgment. In fact, I suspect that there will be times when, after printing certain articles, that we ourselves shall doubt the wisdom of having done so. But even so, we shall do our best with each issue to do what we believe to be right and best.

Your Support Solicited

I would like to ask your help right now in assisting us to get off to a good start in this undertaking. The good accomplished in an undertaking of this sort depends upon two things primarily: (1) The number and quality of articles which the paper carries, and (2) The number of readers which it has. We therefore invite you to send us an article, and we urge you to help us by securing new renders for the paper. I am sure that you know someone who would enjoy reading this paper. Why not ask him to subscribe to the paper?

Brother Wallace and I undertake this work with a great deal of enthusiasm and optimism. But enthusiasm and optimism alone will not guarantee the paper’s success. We, therefore, shall unreservedly work for its success also. Will you join hands with us in making available a paper that will be as beneficial as possible to our readers? Toward this end we shall labor! Will you?

Truth Magazine VI: 11, pp. 3-4
August 1962

By W. W. Otey

On the mount God said: “This is my beloved Son, hear ye him.” (Mark 9:7.) Just before he ascended to heaven to be crowned king, Jesus said: “All authority in heaven is given unto me ” (Matt. 28:18.) To the apostles he said: “He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me.” (Matt. 10:40, 41.) God committed all legislative authority to Jesus. He in turn gave to the apostles who were guided by the Holy Spirit, full authority to speak in his name after he ascended to heaven. This side of the spoken and written word of those inspired by the Holy Spirit no man nor company of men have ever been empowered by God to speak with authority–to legislate–in the kingdom of Christ even in the least matters. As king, Christ is the only lawmaker in his kingdom — the church–, which is his spiritual body. In whatever measure men have in the past, or do now, assume the right to legislate in his kingdom –the church–even in seeming by small matters, in that measure are in rebellion against the authority of Christ, the king. When the last apostle died, legislative authority ended.

But not withstanding the fact that legislative authority ended with the death of the apostles, God has made ample provision for carrying on the work and worship of the church in an orderly manner. All the “law of the spirit of life” is fully written by inspiration. Men with proper qualifications were designated to have the oversight and leadership of the church, in carrying on the work of preaching the gospel and attending to the work and worship of the church. Every item necessary to the spread of the gospel and edification of the church was given by inspiration. The general principles were also given for carrying out the details of the work. The leaders were called evangelists, elders or overseers, and deacons, as servants in material matters. The qualifications of all these are plainly and definitely stated; their work described, and the general principles for the work to be done. But there is not the least semblance of authority given them or the entire church, to enact a single law– a rule of action. Their sole work consisted in administering the law of Christ and in carrying out his work. They were to be guided solely by the law that he as supreme king had enacted by the Holy Spirit as his agent, through the inspired apostles. The church is not a democracy, but a supreme monarchy. Christ, the king, is the only lawgiver. Christ commands; his subjects obey. He rules; citizens in his kingdom serve.

If believers in Christ had first learned and heeded this truth, no apostasy could ever have come. When we forget and begin to violate this truth, admitted by us in theory, in that decree we start another apostasy.

Citizens in a supreme monarchy have no vote. The vote is the sign and symbol; the fundamental principle, and chief instrument of a democracy–a self-governing organization. All laws are decreed, directly or indirectly by vote. Christ has “all authority,” and made the laws to govern his kingdom by decree, spoken and written by the Holy Spirit. In a civil democracy, voters elect representatives, who enact laws that govern the voters. In some instances laws are enacted by direct vote. Votes, wherever or for whatever cast, directly or indirectly, make laws–rules of action. These principles have long been accepted by “us” in theory. All admit the principle is scriptural, but some of “our” practices have seriously violated the scriptural principle by which we have bound ourselves in theory.

What Is a Vote?

“Act or power of expressing an opinion or choice, a suffrage.” The expression of an opinion or choice, for or against one or more of a number of ideas or propositions is a vote. A vote may be cast by printed ballot as it is done in civil elections In social organizations or in religious procedure, the vote may be made by written ballot; by standing, lifting the hand, or by voice. To mail or hand cards to church members to be signed and returned to express choice oh any proposition, as is very often done, and then declare that such procedure is not voting is a shameful subterfuge, and would be unworthy of decent politicians, to say nothing of those professing to be Christians.

The vote is the symbol of democracy; the instrument of legislating or enacting laws for

Self-government. Laws may be by decree of a supreme monarch who governs the citizens in his kingdom. Christ is a supreme monarch. A vote by citizens in his kingdom usurps his authority to the extent of the matters voted on. Till it is shown that Christ has not made ample provision to administer the affairs in his kingdom in an orderly manner, and that men must remedy the defect in his law to govern his subjects–till that is done, to vote in religious matters, is to that extent a usurpation of his power to rule. Doubtless some one will deny this statement, but no one is able to disprove it.

Citizens in a democracy elect representatives by majority vote who pass laws to govern the voters. Without the majority vote no democracy can be established. When established, it can exist and function only by the majority vote. To whatever extent a religious group decides matters by a majority vote; to that extent such a group becomes a democracy with legislative powers. In truth a vote makes a law to the extent and for the time the voters are governed by the principle voted on. If the vote is for choice of a preacher selected, that vote binds the voters so long as he serves. If elders or deacons are voted into office, the voters are bound by and obey that vote as long as those voted into office serve. These conclusions are self-evident.

It seems that the majority vote is justified saying: “The matters we vote on are not of much importance–just incidentals. We will never vote innovations into the church.” To that it is replied that the majority vote is in its very nature a fundamental innovation. Till someone produces either a command or approved example for the majority vote in the word of God, it will remain not only an innovation but the basic innovation by the instrument of which most other innovations are introduced into religious procedure Defenders of instrumental music in the worship appeal to Jewish practices under the law for their authority. Those among “us” who practice voting in the church do not have even that “shadow” of authority to plead in defense of their practice.

For many years “We” preached and debated against voting by denominations, in deciding who should be baptized and admitted into their fellowship. “But,” says one, “the Lord has settled the question of how to get into the church.” Did he fail also to settle the question as to how the work and worship should be carried on? Who so affirms?

Some one may ask, “How are we going to decide which preacher we shall employ; when we shall hold our meetings, and similar questions?” The Lord ordained that qualified men shall have the “oversight” of the work and worship. But these are not “dictators” nor arbitrary “bosses,” but shepherds of the flock; to guide the church in carrying out what the Lord has authorized to be done. It may be that arbitrary rulers and bosses have furnished the excuse for resorting to the majority vote. The writer is not unmindful, in his personal observation, that the temptation is strong under such cases to invoke the vote by an appeal to the membership. But a bad rule of individuals can’t be cured by invoking a far more dangerous unscriptural procedure. The “boos” will soon be pressed out by the proper protests. But when the vote is invoked, it becomes a generally approved policy, and where it has led in past centuries will be noted later in this writing.

The question: “Why invoke the majority,” is one of most serious moment. It is not boasting for the writer to state that his field of observation for years, and undoubted information coming from the most unquestioned sources, show that, in the vast majority of cases, the preacher has invoked the majority vote against the elders, who were, or were regarded, as arbitrary bosses. To the extent the vote becomes general in this regard, it will to that extent establish another kingdom of the clergy, so strongly opposed by those who were the leaders in the restoration a hundred years ago. Once again, it is frankly admitted that boss-rule of those appointed to the eldership, probably furnishes the excuse for first starting to invoke the vote. (A page could be filled here of the reliable instances of congregations being wrecked for years by the vote. This writing deals with the general principle, not its use.)

Ambitious men who desire to rule the church are the ones who most often introduce the vote.

If a congregation with scripturally qualified men appointed as overseers, or without any appointment at all, have a reasonable measure of the spirit of Christ, and desire nothing else but to please the Lord, and do that which is best for the edifying of the church, they can and always will manage all their affairs in peace. But if some are self-willed, contentious, carnally minded, and lacking the spirit of Christ, they will be in strife and division, b tiny and devouring one another, and all the voting that can be done cannot prevent it For such conditions in a membership can be cured, not by a resort to a humanly prescribed remedy–the vote– but by taking the Lord’s infallible remedy; sincere, bitter repentance.

That God never commanded or approved any practice that plainly violated a fundamental principle of the gospel, will be affirmed by every believer in the Bible. What bearing does the majority vote have on a plainly taught principle of the gospel?

Jesus prayed: “Neither for these alone do T pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word: that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee; that they also may be in us; that the world may believe that thou didst send me.” (John 17:20, 21.)

That God commands a unity among believers in Christ as close as the unity that exists between God and Jesus, and that division is accepted in theory by every preacher and writer in our large brotherhood, is unquestioned. And no one will affirm that God has commanded or approved any act or practice that plainly violates the law of unity. The majority vote violates God’s law of unity. A vote in the church either creates a divided sentiment or makes worse a divided sentiment already existing. No vote can be taken without proposing two or more questions on which to vote. If there is a divided sentiment, a vote makes it worse. If there is no divided sentiment one must be created, else there can be no vote. Who can take the responsibility of either making a divided sentiment worse, or of creating a divided sentiment in the church of the Lord?

Who among the many who manage church matters by majority vote will rise and explain why it is so great a sin for our religious neighbors to manage their affairs by majority on a large scale, and so righteous for us to thus manage out church affairs on a small scale? Can we see one hand lifted with an answer? “Wherefore thou art without excuse, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest cost practice the same thing.” (Rom. 2:1.)

The majority vote has never advanced a single item of truth, nor one single command of the Lord. It is safe to say that no vote has ever been taken by church people in favor of one truth or of a divine command. What God has given never has needed any human invention to establish it. Every time a vote in church matters is invoked, it is in support of something not taught in the word of God. To appeal to a vote serves only to settle some question in doubt, not by the word of God, but by human judgment. These are unquestioned facts. They cannot be brushed aside. The course of the church for future years is involved in these matters.

What has been the fruits of the majority vote, the right of self-government, from the first? The majority vote adopted the first creed; revised and perpetuated every creed down to this day. By it the church of Rome came into being, and by it the Pope was declared infallible. The majority vote created every Protestant denomination, placed their ecclesiastical heads over them, thus supplanting Christ. Human innovations from the beginning have been introduced and perpetuated by the majority vote. Take away the vote and every human creed would soon disband, cease to exist, and become disorganized confusion. The vote is the one vital instrument, without which denominations could never have been established, nor still exist.

The majority vote lifted the floodgate through which poured every innovation that led the majority of the churches of the Lord, in the past century, into the great apostasy that now makes up that unhappy people known as the Christian Church.

Let churches of Christ continue to appeal to the vote, not to settle matters that the Lord requires, but to settle untaught things by an appeal to human judgment–just as certain as the law of God, that “whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap,” and that “every seed shall produce after its kind,” will another apostasy be the harvest. It may be a generation, or even longer, but in the ripened harvest will be apostasy.

Truth Magazine VI: 11, pp.5-7
August 1962