Truth Magazine

By Lewis Willis

I have carefully selected the term “warning” in the above title. A danger confronts you and your school age children, and you need to be warned about it so that you can detect it if and when it appears. I see grave consequences if you are indifferent to this warning. Here it is.

The Humanist Magazine (Jan./Feb., 1983, p. 26) published an article by humanist author John Dunphy. I saw a quotation from his article in Torch Magazine, June 1985, and I feel it is important to share with you what he said:

. . . a viable alternative to Christianity must be sought. That alternative is humanism. I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a New Faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the sparks of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit in conveying humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level. . . . The classrooms must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new. . . (All italics mind, L.W.)

This is a frightening statement of intent on the part of the humanist. It is clearly the objective of these people to overthrow Christianity if possible. They intend to elevate each man to the role of God, allowing him to set his own standards and values as he desires. So set on this objective are they that, they themselves call their mission a “battle” for man’s future. Fortunately, they identify for us the battleground on which they will fight. The public school classroom will be used by humanist teachers to instill the “religion” of humanism. They themselves perceive it to be “a new faith.” (Christians are not permitted to teach or practice their “religion” in the public schools. This admission that humanism is a “religion” which is being taught in the schools presents artillery to Christians in opposing humanism. In the view of the courts, “religion is religion,” whether it is Christianity or Humanism, and the same laws that apply to one should apply to the other. A test case in the courts might well be a future weapon to use in the battle against humanism, though I somehow doubt that the American Civil Liberties Union is going to be terribly interested in representing Christians in such a fight.)

I do not know how it will “play” in the courts, but I suspect you could rattle some cages in some school administration conference rooms if you presented Mr. Dunphy’s admission that humanism is “a new faith” or a “religion.” Administrators are fully aware that the Supreme Court has prohibited the teaching of religion in the classrooms of this nation. It seems to me that it is at least worth a try.

Humanists are dedicated to their cause and they are taught to pursue their purpose “as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers” do. They admit their pulpit will be the nation’s classrooms, and they intend to vigorously wage their battles in that arena on every educational level. This means that no student in the nation’s schools will escape the efforts of these people during the years of his education. We are all well aware of the fact that the most lasting influence upon a person will be his earliest influences. We are also aware that you cannot realize much success in teaching New Testament Christianity to a child once he is 16 years old. The greatest success is realized when parents begin this teaching process as early in the child’s life as possible. Humanism acknowledges this and they are announcing that they intend, if possible, to begin instilling the precepts of humanism in the minds of our children, beginning at the kindergarten level.

Therefore, I was just thinkin’. that those who are fore-warned are fore-armed. I suppose by now that all of our children have returned to classes for the school year. The parent can close his eyes to reality and ignore this danger. Or, he can inquire of his child concerning what he is being taught. If he discovers that this junk is being taught to his child, he can loudly object to it. Paul told Timothy to “fight the good fight of faith” (1 Tim. 6:12). If the classrooms prove to be that battleground, then let us stand and fight! Keep in mind, it is your child’s life and soul for which you are fighting. Take the time to talk to your kids and learn what is happening.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 20, p. 627
October 17, 1985

By Mike Willis

Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. Meditate upon these things, give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all (1 Tim. 4:14-15).

This exhortation was given by Paul to the young preacher Timothy. The “gift” to which he referred was most probably some miraculous spiritual gift given by the laying on of Paul’s hands (2 Tim. 1:6), accompanied by prophecies and the laying on of the hands of the elders. Whatever gift was given to Timothy, he was responsible for using in the Master’s service. What was true with Timothy’s miraculous gift is also true of the individual abilities and opportunities which God has given to each of us. Like the one-talent man (Matt. 25:14-30), we are responsible for using our several abilities and opportunities in the kingdom of God. Several dangers threatened Timothy, and every other servant of God, in using his abilities and gifts in the Master’s service.

The Danger of Entanglement

In writing his second letter to Timothy, Paul said, “No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier” (2 Tim. 2:4). Each of us has certain responsibilities which he cannot avoid. Some things have to be done in order to survive. A man has to mow his lawn, keep his cars looking reasonably clean, maintain his house, earn a living, be involved with his children’s schoolwork and outside activities, and other things. There is a real danger that a Christian may become so entangled in these affairs that he neglects his obligations to God.

In the parable of the sower, the seed that fell among thorns was choked out by the “cares and riches and pleasures of this life” (Lk. 8:14). We have witnessed many Christians who became so involved in the affairs of this life that they neglected and forsook the Lord.

Sometimes preachers become like those mentioned in Philippians 2:20-21 -“For I have no man like-minded, who will naturally care for your state. For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ’s.” Isaiah described the spiritual leaders of his day saying, “Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter” (Isa. 56:11). The desire for wealth has caused some preachers to become more involved in selling than in preaching. (This is not to be understood as a blanket condemnation of every preacher who has his own business. Some churches leave a preacher little choice but to supplement his income because they pay him so little and never give him a raise. Others find medical situations that keep them tied to a job in order to have sufficient medical coverage.) The result is that the exercise of one’s spiritual abilities and use of his opportunities are neglected.

Paul’s exhortation to Timothy needs to be repeated: “give thyself wholly to them” (1Tim. 4:15).

The Danger of Laziness

Some men neglect their “gift” because they are simply too lazy to develop and use it. They are content to let others put forth the effort and make the sacrifices to serve. They are willing to let others do the work while they sit at home and watch television.

In every congregation with which I have labored, I have known of men and women who had the ability to teach a Bible class but who were unwilling to put forth the effort to do it. If each of us had the same attitude, no one would preach, teach classes, or lead singing. The same excuse which permits one man not to use his abilities and opportunities will allow every other man to quit doing what he is doing.

Preaching is a work which permits temptation to laziness. There are no bosses watching over a man to be sure that he works a reasonable number of hours each day. He can wait until Saturday, pull out someone’s outline from a book, look over it and preach it on Sunday morning; few would notice what had been done and many would not care. If he neglects the work of finding and working with contacts, he can excuse himself by saying, “No one wants to hear the gospel these days.” Some neglect their gifts because they are lazy. They are content to sit in front of a television and drink Pepsi, to go hunting and fishing, and take frequent vacations. When brethren object to this conduct, these preachers complain that the brethren have no appreciation for a gospel preacher and his work.

A preacher who is truly committed to his work finds that there are not enough hours in the day to do all the things which need to be done. His interest in the word of God calls him to long hours of study; his concern for the lost makes him look for opportunities to have home Bible studies. He is frequently the one most available to relieve the physical needs of those in a congregation (such as cutting firewood, mowing a yard, etc.). Truly a dedicated servant of God can find plenty of work in the kingdom of the Lord.

Paul’s exhortation to Timothy needs to be repeated: “give thyself wholly to them” (1 Tim. 4:15).

The Need for Every Man’s Contribution

Peter wrote, “As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God” (1 Pet. 4: 10). Every man needs to realize that his gifts, abilities, and talents are needed in the local church. The church is compared to a body (1 Cor. 12:1-3 1) in which every member has a function. If one member chooses not to use his abilities, he not only hurts himself, he also hurts the whole church because these gifts are to be used to “minister the same one to another.”

Suppose that every qualified song leader in your local congregation decided, “I quit.” The whole church would suffer. The usual edification which we receive from the singing would diminish as those who have no song leading ability stumble through and butcher the singing. Suppose that every qualified teacher refused to teach. The entire congregation would suffer because of their refusal to teach.

Sometimes I meet a member of the church who has had his feelings hurt while serving in some capacity. Perhaps some unthoughtful and unkind person made a harsh and unjust criticism of their work or made a justified criticism in such strong words that they became discouraged. A common response is, “I won’t teach any more” or “I won’t try to lead singing any more.” Like the one-talent man, they are ready to go bury their talents and sit around stewing and pouting. The whole church is suffering because of such behavior. Their refusal to serve has the same effect on the church as one leg refusing to walk would have on the body.

Conclusion

Each of us has different abilities and opportunities to serve in the Lord’s kingdom. We are responsible before God for those opportunities to serve. Consequently, we need to give special attention to Paul’s admonitions to “neglect not the gift that is in thee” and to “give thyself wholly to them.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 21, pp. 642, 662
November 7, 1985

By Ron Halbrook

Promote and Protest “An Appeal to the Stomach”

Woods has been known through the years for opposing church sponsored recreation, but inconsistent with that principle, he has argued that the local church should promote social meals in the name of “fellowship and brotherliness” (Gospel Advocate, 4 Mar. 1976, pp. 149-50). By the same token, why shouldn’t the church provide a fully equipped gymnasium to provide for “fellowship and brotherliness” seven days a week? In 1977 an Arkansas church billed Woods as coming to contrast “the pure gospel” with “apostasy in general,” including “Church Softball Leagues” (G.A., 19 May 1977, p. 315). Can Woods not see that the church has as much reason to induce “fellowship and brotherliness” through softball games and gyms as through social meals?

But as late as 1977, Woods opposed the church honoring Christians for their diligence by giving them a spaghetti supper. “Is it not sad that it takes an appeal to the stomach to induce people to serve Christ, who no longer feel the compulsion of love?” (G.A., 4 Aug. 1977, p. 485). We might ask whether the church must induce people to spiritual “fellowship and brotherliness” by “an appeal to the stomach” or by an appeal to any other carnal desire on any occasion for any reason I Woods is blind to the inconsistency of both permitting and protesting church sponsored social activities. He plants the acorn and protests the growing tree.

In the conversation of 1 March 1980, Woods emphatically claimed that he still believes it is unscriptural for churches to provide from the treasury recreational facilities and programs to the general membership of the church, such as gymnasiums. The church might incidentally supply such things in providing for the needy, he added. All this was confirmed in his 8 April 1981 letter. We reminded him that this was not consistent with his endorsement of Ira North and the Madison, Tennessee church with its elaborate recreational program and million-dollar gym. Woods professed to know nothing about any such program or gym.

Believing that Woods had at least some conviction against church sponsored recreation, many brethren were shocked when he agreed to be Associate Editor with Ira North (1922-84) as Editor of the Gospel Advocate. The new team greeted the world in the 5 January 1978 issue. Woods found it “an unmixed joy” to work with North and pronounced him as completely dedicated to “New Testament Christianity in its purest form” as Woods himself “in every instance” (G.A., 4 Jan. 1979, p. 2). In preparing for Woods to become Editor and North Editor Emeritus, each man recognized a common “love for the truth” in the other with only a difference of style in speaking it (G.A., 19 Nov. 1981, pp. 674-75, 691). Woods’ first editorial appeared in the 7 January 1982 issue.

Did Woods never know of North’s and Madison’s heavy involvement in church sponsored recreation, or has Woods further compromised his convictions and violated his principles? The Madison Marcher of 7 February 1979 announced that Woods would speak every Wednesday evening during March. The next column of print talked about activities in the Family Life Center-the common euphemism for a gym. The next two pages carried a full spread headlined, “Family Life Center-A Great Boon to Madison Young People.” Large photographs show the Norths jogging in the gym, game tables, weight lifting equipment, a devotional, and a basketball game with teenage boys and girls together in shorts-some of the activities going on “seven days and seven nights a week.”

In case Woods did not get the Marcher, I sent him various issues which detailed in announcements and pictures such activities as classes on cardiac pulmonary resuscitation, slimnastics, ceramics, macrame, bowling, basketball, basketball officiating, and jogging. Also included were junior high and golden age banquets, softball teams, parties, dinners, trips, costume contests, and movies such as Walt Disney’s “The Jungle Book.” This recreational craze, ranging from social meals to gyms, has spread by leaps and bounds in recent years. If such obvious and outrageous perversions of the church for which Jesus died can go forward without fearing opposition in the Gospel Advocate, then indeed the cancer of compromise has eaten deeply into the vitals of faith. Guy Woods has been sitting in the editorial chair for five and a half years in Nashville, in the very shadow of a church with one of the most elaborate and outrageous recreational programs in the country, yet has failed to cry out against such idolatry. Indeed, North is pronounced sound “in every instance.”

Compromise Leads to Defeat

In an age of apostasy, the course of compromise and inconsistency is often followed by men who think they are maneuvering into a position to counterbalance and restrain the more radical trends of liberalism. But when they fail to make the applications of truth which their professed principles demand, they simply permit Satan to maneuver them into tolerating more and more error. The churches and human institutions such men attempt to save by posturing and maneuvering slide gradually into deeper apostasy.

Such was the experience of some for-a-while very popular men 100 years ago – J.W. McGarvey (1829-1911), Moses Lard (1818-80), Robert Graham (Ik2-1902), W.H. Hopson (1823-88), I.B. Grubbs (1833-1912), J.B. Briney (1839-19-27), and others. These middle-of-the-roads were blind to their inconsistencies-preaching principles of truth while tolerating, excusing and practicing violations of those principles. Often they took hard blows from men committed 100 percent to apostasy and from men equally committed against it. There is a large group caught up in the web of maneuver, compromise, and inconsistency today-Guy Woods, Ira Rice, Johnny Ramsey, Thomas Warren, Garland Elkins, Clifton Inman, Bill Jackson, Jerry Moffitt, Franklin Camp, Gary Workman, and others. As the apostasy runs off and leaves them, they must posture and maneuver more and more, or else be left in the dust.

To the chagrin of his own friends, Guy Woods yoked himself with Ira North. Now comes another shifting of the ground beneath Woods’ feet. Neil W. Anderson, President and Publisher of the Gospel Advocate Co., has reorganized the paper without consulting Woods at all (G.A., 6 June 1985, p. 323). That means that Woods is out as Editor, but will be allowed to handle the “Question and Answer” page. Woods tells us in advance the views to be stated in that column may not be shared by “others associated with the Gospel Advocate” and fails to say one word commending the new Editor.

F. Furman Kearley began as Editor on 18 July. Who is he? After teaching in several Bible departments in colleges run by the brethren, most recently at Abilene Christian University, he moved to the small west Texas town of Monahans to preach. During a unity meeting of Christian Church preachers and our liberal brethren at Joplin, Missouri (7-9 Aug. 1984), Kearley made the following comments along with the ultra-liberal Wayne Kilpatrick of Birmingham, Alabama:

FURMAN KEARLEY: This is an aspect of the isolation, is, a lack of knowledge of our histories. If we could start in our congregations doing some more study of the Restoration history outside of our own branch and looking at the distinctions between the conservative, instrumental and the Christian Church.

WAYNE KILPATRICK: I wonder, too, if bringing Christian Church preachers into our class like this might not be a good thing. Let them come in and tell their history in a class situation.

FURMAN KEARLEY: Yes, that’s right.

WAYNE KILPATRICK: I think you can ease from the class to the pulpit.

FURMAN KEARLEY: Right, and you can get by with. . .

WAYNE KILPATARICK: . . . the class . . .

FURMAN KEARLEY: . . . telling history . . .

WAYNE KILPATRICK: Yeah.

FURMAN KEARLEY: . . . whereas if they’re telling doctrine . . . (chuckle)

WAYNE KILPATRICK: And while they’re telling history let them tell about doctrine . . .

FURMAN KEARLEY: Yeah.

WAYNE KILPATRICK: . . . to make us know that, “Hey we believe alike on so much of this.” So that may be a beginning point – through the classroom. (Transcribed from a tape and published in Ira Rice’s Contending for the Faith, June 1985, p. 4.)

Woods spoke out strongly against the Joplin unity meeting precisely because it largely represented the sentiments of men such as Kearley and Kilpatrick (G.A., 4 Oct. 1984, pp. 578-80). Now Woods finds himself in the harness with Kearley, trying to hold on to a forum where he can speak. Once again he puts his convictions in a nutcracker-how much must he swallow and excuse, how much can he afford to say without risking another demotion?

To Overcome: Remember and Resolve

Yes, brethren, we live during a period of history that is full of lessons which reflect and underscore the truth of the Bible. Remember Israel’s profession of respect for God’s authority in the praise offered on the shore of the Red Sea, in the promise before Moses at Sinai, and in the response to Joshua. Remember Saul’s profession of loyalty to the truth and his blindness to compromise and inconsistency. Remember the stinging indictment by the Holy Spirit, “Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself” Remember Campbell’s unwitting regression from the high ground, “In their church capacity alone they moved. ” We cannot forget classic statements of fundamental truths made by McGarvey and Lard, nor forget the error they were practicing when they made those fine statements.

Let us remember the grand principles so eloquently enunciated by brother Woods. his caution of the ruinous effects of “the tendency toward institutionalism;” his warning against the pseudo-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;” his reminder that the local church is all-sufficient without “boards and conclaves unknown to the New Testament”; and his protest of “an appeal to the stomach to induce people to serve Christ.” But with sadness, remember too his inconsistency in defending church sponsored institutionalism and social gatherings, and how his blindness to compromise yoked him with Brewer, then North, and now Kearley.

Let there be no bitterness, rancor, or self-righteous arrogance as we meditate upon these lessons, but a sense of tragedy of it all and of our own frailty and proneness to err from the principles we profess. At the same time, there ought to be a sense of righteous indignation in us when men preach the truth but refuse to apply and practice it. The principles are right if we can put our finger on the verse. But that is not enough. Let us resolve to correct our course when we fall into practices which are inconsistent with the truth, rather than changing our principles or closing our eyes to the violation. Let us constantly and prayerfully review both our faith and our practice, with a determination to do what is right no matter what the costs or consequences may be. “Considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted” (Gal. 6: 1).

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 20, pp. 618-619
October 17, 1985

By Irven Lee

“But ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). This is a part of a conversation the Christ had with His apostles just before He ascended to the heavenly throne. You and I are not about to receive miraculous power to bind on earth that which is bound in heaven. Neither are we witnesses of the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension that others might establish their faith on our direct knowledge of these great events. We could, in our feeble way, profit by considering the Master’s order of evangelizing: Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the uttermost part of the earth.

The beginning place for the preaching the full gospel was Jerusalem (Lk. 24:47). This was a matter of prophecy (Isa. 2:1-3; Mic. 4:1,2). From this beginning place the gospel was to spread to every creature in all the world (Mk. 16:15). Jerusalem was in the province of Judea, and Samaria was an adjacent province. Saints from Jerusalem might be expected soon to preach the word in Judea and Samaria. Later Paul preached at Ephesus, and the word spread to the Roman province of Asia around Ephesus (Acts 19: 10; Col. 1:7; 4:12). Planting the truth at Thessalonica. led to the sounding out of the word in Macedonia and Achaia and to regions beyond (1 Thess. 1:8).

It would be wonderful if each church today could see that the territory surrounding it (its Judea and Samaria) could hear the word. Philippi helped in the preaching of the word at Thessalonica and Corinth (Phil. 4:15,16; 2 Cor. 11:8). Is this not the Lord’s will-for every place? The seed of the kingdom is planted in one place that the resulting church might plant the church in the area around it and beyond. Even in the field of nature a seed that falls on the ground is designed to produce a plant that will provide seed for the area around it. That is the way the ground is covered. That is the way the gospel should cover the earth in every generation.

It is scriptural and important to send men to distant places with the gospel, but at the same time we should be able to evangelize the home county and adjacent counties. The Lord’s pattern for the early church included Judea and Samaria as well as the uttermost part of the earth. Is the church where you meet neglecting its responsibility in this regard?

It is easy to see that starting a new church within a neighboring community may be less difficult than it would be to send some one into a distant area to start from the “ground up.” A few might go to the new work in “Judea” or “Samaria”and the home church still carry on somewhat as before. In fact, the challenge of seeing the will of the Lord carried out can strengthen the church that encourages this special effort. The few that left may soon be replaced by new faces at the church which is made more zealous by the worthy activity.

We are not suggesting starting “missions” under the control of the “mother church.” We are suggesting starting independent churches through the preaching of the pure gospel in another community. The Bible says nothing about little churches being under the control of the older church. There is an abundance of Scripture that encourages the preaching of the word in other communities. When the truth is faithfully preached this leads to the obedience of some. When they are saved they become members of the church, and they will need to continue “steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:36-47). Churches spread over an area as the gospel is faithfully preached publicly and privately.

The new work may develop new skills in leadership and more zeal for some. It is a challenge to find song leaders, teachers, and preachers for another church. The need will be there, and the need encourages a pleasant response. Each servant is to turn his five talents into ten, or his two talents into four. It is a shame for one to bury his talent. In reaching out in the work new abilities are discovered and developed. Good preachers and other good workers are born in such efforts.

Sometimes a new work gathers in trouble makers who seek to dominate the work. Factious people are to be marked, avoided, and rejected (Rom. 16:17, 18; Tit. 3:10, 11). The older church may have strengthened itself to handle such problems while the few at the new place find it hard to deal with such at first. Satan evidently likes to attack where the defenses against him have not been put in place. Beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing while you continue to search eagerly for worthy laborers.

Do not despise the day of small things. Patience is needed in planting and watering where time and past effort have not already established a strong church. Rome was not built in a day, we are told. Many of the strong churches today began small and grew slowly. Those who first struggled had much to do with the good work that is being done today. Do not be ashamed or afraid to start small and persevere.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 20, p. 617
October 17, 1985