Truth Magazine

By Fred A. Shewmaker

The telephone rang; I answered it; Mother said, “Your Dad is gone.” Lattie Glover Shewmaker, who was called Glover or L.G., was born July 7, 1900 in Arkansas. He departed from life August 14, 1986 at Long Beach, California, having lived 86 years, I month, and 7 days. He is survived by his wife, Grace, whom he married in Alton, Illinois August 10, 1929; a son Fred; a daughter, Marcella Bethel; 3 brothers, Troy, Otto and Aubrey; 7 grandchildren and 3 great grandchildren.

Dad had limited formal education, but he was well acquainted with the contents of the Bible. Nearly every day of his adult life he took time to read the word of God. It was a settled matter in his home that before bedtime there would be a Bible reading and the offering of prayer.

Dad never was active in politics. One person told me that he was not interested in education. Nevertheless, he was the one who told residents of Stanford, Arkansas, about 45 years ago, “If you do not want to send your high school students to Beach Grove, now is the time to work to get a high school here. It can be done while ‘Doc’ Self is the County judge.” Stanford High School opened for the fall term in 1941. As long as I can remember, Dad encouraged my sister and me to obtain a college education. As we grew up, one of his top priorities was to save enough to pay our college tuition. When circumstances required him to move to obtain work, during a school term, Mother, sister and I would be left behind until that school term ended. Others also received his assistance in their efforts to obtain a college education.

I am altogether convinced that L.G. Shewmaker loved the Lord, the truth, the church and the brethren. He was a friend to preachers. He enjoyed the preaching of the pure gospel. He also appreciated those who defended the truth in honorable debate. He enjoyed telling about various debates he had attended and the debaters he had known. He delighted in repeating illustrations which he had heard debaters use or explaining how a debater had used a certain passage to expose some error.

When I was a boy we lived in Green County, Arkansas. Preachers who came for meetings at Croft College always stayed with us. Dad was not a preacher. Probably the longest speech he ever made to an assembly was delivered at Delaplane, Arkansas in 1939 or 1940. Dad had been asked to “wait on the Lord’s table” that Sunday morning. False doctrine regarding punishment after death was advocated by the preacher in his sermon. After serving the Lord’s supper, Dad picked up his Bible and said, “There are some things I must say.” Then he began reading passage after passage from the New Testament regarding hell and punishment of the wicked. Having finished reading, he said, “These things force me to disagree with that which was taught in the sermon this morning.” The preacher arose and said, “When brother Shewmaker becomes as old and I am and has studied as long and as hard as I have, he will change his mind.” Immediately Dad responded, “I hope to God I will not live that long.”

Although Dad was not a preacher, he did baptize two people. Two young ladies requested baptism at Croft College on a Sunday morning. There was not a preacher present. Dad set out to find a preacher, driving around to the various meeting houses, but arrived at the appointed place for the baptisms without a preacher. One of the young ladies asked, “Why can’t Glover do it?” Being unable to give a reason why he could not, he baptized them.

Dad was a man of convictions. He could stand on his convictions when no other man stood with him. At one place where he was a member of the church, it appeared that a brother who had not attended services for an extended period, would be received back into full fellowship without making any acknowledgment of error or expressing any repentance. Dad took his stand with firm and open opposition to that. The brother had a son who was a gospel preacher. He consulted his son and was told to repent and make acknowledgments of his error. He did and Dad welcomed him into the local fellowship.

It was during that same period of his life that Dad put his job on the line. As he and his fellow workers were in line to clock out on Saturday evening, their foreman came down the line saying, “Everybody back tomorrow.” Dad stopped him and said that he would not work on Sunday and miss worship. The foreman said that if he did not work the next day, he would not have a job on Monday. After attending worship on Sunday, Dad went to work Monday morning not knowing whether or not he still was employed. His time card was in the rack. He clocked in. Nothing was said about him missing work on Sunday until the workers lined up to clock out Saturday evening. Their foreman came down the line saying, “Everybody back tomorrow. ” When he saw Dad, he said, “Everybody back tomorrow, except Glover.”

During the years that I was growing up, Dad was a Bible class teacher. In later years it seems that he was content to have those with more formal education teach the classes. in the last two churches with which he was identified, it was his responsibility to select those who participated in the services. He used that position to encourage young men to take part in the services. He was motivated by his own experience as a young man to encourage them. He said that when he grew up, the older men did everything. Then the day came when all the older men had passed on and everything fell on the young men’s shoulders. They were untrained and did not know how to carry on. Dad said, “We just had to do the best we could and there are those who lived all their lives without ever participating in a public way.”

Zeal for encouraging the development of young men once lead him to ask two service men to assist with the serving of the Lord’s supper. They consented to help and did. When services ended that morning some one questioned Dad about the wisdom of using persons “who are not members of the church.” The two young men had been regularly attending services and Dad had assumed that, even though they had not identified with the local church, they must be members back where they came from. That did not dampen Dad’s zeal for encouraging young men to participate in the public services. After that, he just made certain that a young man was a member of the church, before asking him to participate.

Dad often seemed gruff. He was not one to waste words. At times his manner caused people to think he was angry. An elder where Dad was a deacon once told me, “Fred, when I first met your dad, I thought he had about the sourest disposition of anyone I ever came across; but, you know, as I came to know him, I began to realize that he has about the driest sense of humor a man could have.” That is very close to the fact, but Dad also was tender-hearted, hospitable and generous.

Although I did not realize all that I am about to write at the time it happened, Dad revealed to me and others his tender heart on Sunday morning when I was still a small boy. He stood before the church with tears flowing down his cheeks asking forgiveness for his involvement in an incident that had resulted in talk against the church by residents of the community. I have never figured out how he could have avoided that incident, but that is of no consequence. His tears taught me the dignity of tears shed in concern for the cause of Christ.

Dad’s hospitality may be seen in his keeping preachers who came for meetings, which was mentioned earlier, but it went beyond that. He delighted in having guests. Many times his desire to show hospitality moved him to extend an invitation, before learning from mother that really she was unprepared to receive guests, but would honor his will.

The scope of dad’s generosity probably is unknown to any one outside his immediate family. There was never fanfare about it. By American standards he was not exceptionally wealthy. Nevertheless, even after he retired, he and mother supplied gospel preachers and struggling churches in the United States and across the seas with thousands of dollars in assistance. Neither Dad nor Mother have been what could be called “an easy touch.” They answered one request for a contribution, “We feel that what we can contribute to the work of the Lord should be given to directly assist the work of the local church or to directly support gospel preaching.”

Dad never seemed to need the praise of men. I believe he was at peace with himself and our Lord. His trial by life on earth has ended. He will no longer be standing at the door of the Spring and Delta meeting house to greet you or help you find a seat when the crowd is large. “Dad is gone.” His eternal destiny is sealed. We have full assurance in hope of his eternal welfare.

Lattie Glover Shewmaker’s earthly remains were buried August 18, 1986 at Sunnyside Memorial Park in Long Beach, California. Speakers at the memorial service were: Fred A. Shewmaker, son; P.S. Bethel, son-in-law and Don Wright, local minister at Spring and Delta. Don is a young man in his first located work. This was his first funeral. Mother views it as an opportunity for him to gain experience. Dad would have liked that.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 19, pp. 586-587
October 2, 1986

By Frank Jamerson

The sports world was shocked recently by the death of Lyn Bias, the University of Maryland basketball star who had been drafted number one by the Boston Celtics. He had taken cocaine, and though he was in good health and according to the autopsy, the amount of cocaine in his system was “average,” he is dead!

One sports writer asked several questions that I think are worthy of our consideration. (1) Why would Bias want to take the drug in the first place? Here is a guy fixing to make a living with his body, so (2) Why endanger that body with a mind-altering drug that has been proven to erode physical performance? (3) Why “celebrate” with a life-threatening drug? He surely had heard of the risks associated with that drug.

The wise writer of Ecclesiastes asked a similar question -many years ago. He said: “Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time?” (Eccl. 7:17) He is not saying that a little wickedness is all right, but is condemning the idea that man can continue in wickedness without suffering the consequences. Because God is longsuffering, some think “God hath forgotten: he hideth his face; he will never see it” (Psa. 10:11). Wickedness often leads to men dying before their time. Lyn Bias is just one example of this. The state of Maryland has come into special scrutiny because of his death. It has been revealed that in the last three years at least sixteen have died from the same drug. How many others have “died before their time,” by the use of cocaine, or other such drugs, no one knows.

The question that I continually ask is: Why will those who know the possible consequences of drug experimentation “try it” anyway? Why will even those who are children of God endanger their lives and their souls just to see if there is a thrill in it? Not everyone who “tries it once,” will suffer the same consequence as Lyn Bias, but what could they possibly gain from the experiment?

We may ask the same question about many other sins. Why would a person who knows right from wrong and the possible consequences of fornication engage in that practice? Is it the same reason that Lyn Bias took cocaine? In describing the ways of a harlot, the writer of Proverbs said: “He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, or as a fool to the correction of the stocks (punishment devices); . . . Let not thine heart decline to her ways, go not astray in her paths. For she hath cast down many wounded; yea, many strong men have been slain by her. Her house is the way to hell, going down to the chambers of death” (Prov. 7:22-27). Many young people have forfeited their purity and the profound privilege of giving themselves totally to the one they marry because they wanted to “try it once.” Many married men and women have forfeited the life of happiness and trust that they may have had because they wanted to be like Lyn Bias – “try it once.” Sins can be forgiven, but their consequences are inevitable. They may not be as drastic as death, but there are always consequences of sin.

Why will people who know the truth try alcoholic drinks? Is their life enriched in some mysterious way by saying “I’ve tried it”? When those who have tried it tell us the consequences, must we say, “Well I am going to try it myself”? Will those who heard of the death of Lyn Bias say, “I don’t know whether a normal dose of cocaine will kill me”? Can we not learn from the experiences of others, or must we make all the mistakes ourselves?

Solomon has been called “the human guinea pig.” He gave his “heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven” (Eccl. 1:13). After he had tried it all, he said: “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man” (Eccl. 12:13). “The fear of the Lord prolongeth days: but the years of the wicked shall be shortened” (Prov. 10:27).

The service of sin is always vain because of the loss of happiness both here and hereafter. You do not have to “try it once” to know this!

Guardian of Truth XXX: 19, p. 594
October 2, 1986

By Johnie Edwards

A magnet has drawing power. The Bible mentions some things which have drawing power like a magnet. Divine magnets do not draw against the will of man but as man’s will becomes submissive to God’s will the work is accomplished.

God Draws Men

Jesus said, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day” (Jn. 6:44). God draws men. We need to know how it is that God draws men to Him. Please observe: “It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto Me” (Jn. 6:45). Men are drawn to God as they are aught. Men hear, learn and then come to God. This process involves not only God’s will but man’s as well. The fact that man cannot resist God’s grace, just isn’t so!

Jesus Draws By The Cross

Jesus said, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up” (Jn. 3:14). Jesus was lifted up from the earth as He died on the cross. Again Jesus said, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me” (Jn. 12:32). The death of Jesus on the cross is like a magnet to draw men in becoming Christians. For it is “by the cross” that men are reconciled “unto God in one body. . . ” (Eph. 2:16). No wonder Paul told the Corinthians, “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness: but unto us which are saved it is the power of God” (1 Cor. 1:17).

The Gospel of Christ Has Drawing Power

Paul told the Romans, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek, For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith” (Rom. 1:16-17). The gospel which contains God’s righteousness has saving power. This is the reason that Paul told the Thessalonians, “Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thess. 2:14). No wonder Jesus said to the apostles, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:15-16).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 19, p. 591
October 2, 1986

By Johnny Stringer

This debate occurred largely because of the desire of Kent Bailey, preacher for the institutional church in Lenoir City, Tennessee. Brother Bailey recognizes the need for scriptural authority and recognizes that he is much closer to us than he is to many in the institutional churches. In fact, many institutional churches consider Kent to be an “anti.”

Through Kent’s efforts, the elders in the Lenior City church decided to permit a four-night debate to be held in their building. They are to be commended. They chose Glenn B. Ramsay, vice-president of Tennessee Bible College, Cookeville, Tennessee, to represent their position. The elders of the West Knoxville church asked L.A. Stauffer, preacher for the Kirkwood church in the St. Louis area, to represent their conservative position. Kent Bailey moderated for brother Ramsay; Greg Gwin, preacher for the West Knoxville church, moderated for brother Stauffer.

Propositions For The First Two Nights

On Monday night L.A. Stauffer affirmed and Glenn Ramsay denied: “The Scriptures teach that a New Testament church, when supporting an evangelist out of its treasury, may only send wages directly to the evangelist.”

On Tuesday night, Glenn Ramsay affirmed and L.A. Stauffer denied: “The Scriptures teach that one New Testament church may financially assist (with money from its treasury) another New Testament church in the preaching of the gospel.”

The point at issue in these propositions is whether one church may oversee a work for many churches. A church which receives funds from other churches so that it can oversee the use of those funds in doing evangelistic work is normally called a “sponsoring church.” Brother Ramsay, however, refused to accept that designation and vigorously protested that he was not defending a sponsoring church.

All of brother Ramsay’s protestations notwithstanding, a church doing what brother Ramsay’s proposition says it may do is what brethren generally call a sponsoring church. Rejecting that designation does not make the arrangement any more scriptural.

Ramsay’s Two Main Arguments

Brother Ramsay used the old argument that the Philippian church was a sponsoring church. He took the untenable position that 2 Corinthians 11:8-9 and Philippians 4:15 refer to the same occasion, and that the churches mentioned in 2 Corinthians 11 (Berea and Thessalonica, he said) sent money to the church at Philippi, which then sent the money to Paul in Corinth.

Brother Stauffer ably showed that these were two different times and situations. He stressed that it would not even make good geographical sense for churches in Berea and Thessalonica, which were closer to Corinth than Philippi was, to send money over a hundred miles up to Philippi, so the church there could send it back down to Corinth. And how ungracious it would have been for Paul to give credit only to the Philippians (Phil. 4) when other churches had actually given the money.

Brother Ramsay’s other main argument was that churches in the New Testament sent benevolence to other churches. He believes that if a church could send benevolence to another church, it could send money for evangelism to another church.

Brother Stauffer pointed out the difference. When churches sent to the church in Jerusalem, it was for “their want” (2 Cor. 8:14); it was to satisfy the particular need of the Jerusalem church. It was not so that the Jerusalem church could oversee a work for the sending churches.

When churches send to another church for evangelism, however, it is not to meet the particular need of that church; rather, that church is overseeing a work which all the sending churches have an obligation to perform. It is, therefore, overseeing a work for all the church.

Propositions for the Last Two Nights

On Thursday night Ulerm Ramsay affirmed and L.A. Stauffer denied: “The Scriptures teach that a New Testament church, in its benevolent work, may use money from its treasury to support both saints and non-saints.”

On Friday night L.A. Stauffer affirmed and Glenn Ramsay denied: “The Scriptures teach that a New Testament church, in its benevolent work, may use money from its treasury to support only needy saints.”

Both men agreed that the issue is not what the individual may do, but what the local church may do. Both recognized that there is a distinction.

James 1:27

Brother Ramsay’s discussion of this passage was amazing. Those of us who hold to the position that brother Stauffer does have always pointed out that James 1:27 is discussing individual activity. James is talking to brethren about responsibilities we have as individuals – things we do distributively rather than collectively.

To my astonishment, Glenn Ramsay stood and labored at length proving that very point I He stressed that brethren are addressed (v. 19), showing that the instructions were to the group. Then he forcefully argued that in this passage, the action of the group is distributed to the individual. He talked much about the “distributive principle,” thereby arguing brother Stauffer’s case for him.

An Unscriptural Rule

The brethren represented by brother Ramsay do not believe that the church can do anything an individual can do. Yet, they want the local church to fulfill some responsibilities that the Scriptures have given the individual. This means they must have some way of determining which passages regarding individuals are applicable to the church.

Here is their rule: If an individual has a responsibility which is based on the peculiar grounds that he is a Christian, then that responsibility can be fulfilled by the local church.

I do not know who made up that rule. I do not believe it was the Lord, because I have His Book and it’s not in there. Brother Ramsay did not explain how one decides whether or not a particular individual responsibility is based on the peculiar grounds that one is a Christian. One could be rather arbitrary in that decision. To my surprise, brother Ramsay said that the responsibility to do good to all men (Gal. 6:10) is not based on the peculiar grounds that one is a Christian. Hence, Galatians 6:10 was eliminated as a text to sustain his position.

Conclusion

All involved in this debate are to be commended for their willingness to discuss issues over which we disagree. I believe brother Stauffer ably defended the truth.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 19, pp. 589, 598
October 2, 1986