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 Tom Roberts

All of religion is academic without a power or force to make it vital. This can be seen in the dead and sterile litanies of Roman Catholicism and other world religions. Whether the prayer wheel of the Buddhist or the counting of beads by the Catholic, such religion is “vain,” springing from the doctrines of men rather than the mind of God (Mt. 15:9). That which gives New Testament Christianity its life is the object of our faith, Jesus Christ: crucified, raised and glorified. “Faith to the saving of the soul” (Heb. 10:39) is that “obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5) which offers to God both worship and living that is patterned after His will. All men should realize that it is not mere “doing” or religious activity that God accepts. He is not obligated to accept our efforts, regardless of their zeal, just because we have performed them (Mt. 7:23). What we do, therefore, must be in accord with the will of God and must be accompanied with sincerity and love or it is empty and fruitless (Jn. 4:24; 1 Cor. 13: 1ff). With these thoughts as a preface, let us consider the cross of Christ and its meaning to the Christian.

The Misunderstood Cross

Paul accused the Athenians (Acts 17) of superstitious worship because of their idolatry. If this same apostle could see how people view the cross today, he would accuse us of the same practice. Many people, both in and out of the church, have come to revere a cross, made of “gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device” (Acts 17:29) as a talisman, a good luck charm or the focal point for the dispensing of God’s grace. Thus, the form of a cross is often used in architecture to provide a “sacred building” in which the teaching of Christ is ignored. It is often worn as an ornament or sign of authority among “clergy” who usurp the authority of Jesus. One is often elevated above an altar in cathedrals where the very divinity of Christ is denied. Shapes of crosses adorn many walls in homes where the name of Christ is taken in vain, if at all. The “sign of the cross” has become, for both the criminal and priest, a superstitious ward against evil and a mans of bestowing blessings and grace. So pervasive, in fact, is the adoration of the cross that we might just dispense with Jesus and retain a cross itself as the efficacy and essence of religion. Such foolishness would be equal to keeping the bath water and throwing out the baby. There is a great need today to understand the biblical intent of the cross of Christ.

The Cross: Both Real and Symbolic

Whatever else we understand about the cross, we must realize that there was a real cross, an intrument of torture and death. Jesus died a lingering and suffering death on such a “tree.” It matters little what shape the cross took. Whether simple or ornate, an “X” or a “T,” it was a means of capital punishment in the Roman world and Jesus accepted its embrace. But the “relic” of the cross is nonexistent and supposed “splinters of the true cross” are simple frauds foisted upon the simpleminded with no purpose to be served among believers. Yet the Bible retains much teaching about the cross and suggests a vital relationship between the Christian and the cross. Without falling into superstition, how may we receive the benefits of the cross today? How does the cross fit into the pattern of true worship?

To understand this, we must understand that the Bible uses figures of speech. Figures of speech are not intended to obscure but to elucidate. Such is true in this case. We are far removed from the real wooden cross but not from the meaning of the cross, its symbolism. The figure of speech to which we refer in our study is metonomy: a part of a thing standing for the whole. In this case, the cross of Jesus has come to include the entire spectrum of the gospel. So meaningful and complete is the imagery of this word that is not necessary to refer individually to the events of Jesus’ death or to the elements of justification, salvation and saving grace. It is enough to “preach the cross” (1 Cor. 1:18). Paul could say that he determined not to know anything save “Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). Those who opposed Jesus were said to be “enemies of the cross of Christ” (Phil. 3:18). It is in the cross of Christ that we should glory (Gal. 6:14). Care should be taken lest the “word of the cross” (1 Cor. 1:18), here equated with gospel preaching, should be mingled with the wisdom of men so that the “cross of Christ should be made of none effect” (1 Cor. 1:17). Is it not clear, therefore, that the cross stands for the whole message; metonomy, the part for the whole? With this properly digested, we can determine what the cross means to us today. Errors of men cannot obscure the beauty of the cross when we understand its true meaning. It is quite evident that God intended for the cross to have an impact on our thinking and our lives. Let us study that we may be blessed by the “word of the cross.”

The Meaning of the Cross

The cross of Christ tells us that sin is a curse. When used as an ornament around the neck, a cross says little about the ugliness of sin. But when we look at sin through the cross of Christ, we see sin as God does: ugly, deforming, condemning, separating man from his Creator. Sin is so terrible -that it made God send His only begotten Son to the cross to pay for its cost. Las Vegas does not present a true picture of sin. In the nightclubs and on TV, sin is glamorous, gaudy, fun, titillating, exhilarating. But sin causes deathseparation from God (Rom. 6:23; Isa. 59:1,2). Jesus became a curse for us, hanging on the cross (Gal. 3:13), and I should see this when I see the cross.

The cross of Christ tells us that a sacrifice for sin was made. Blood was appointed by God to be the atonement for sin (Lev. 17:10, 11). The blood of animals was insufficient to do the job of reclaiming the soul of man but the blood of Jesus was the perfect sacrifice. The Hebrew writer eloquently explores this subject when he speaks of the inadequacies of the blood of animals as compared with the “body prepared” for God (Heb. 9). 1 should see this when I see the cross.

The cross of Christ tells us that substitution was made. “The soul that sins shall die” (Ezek. 18:4). 1 sinned, therefore I ought to die. But thanks be to God that His grace permitted it to be different. As the story of Abraham and Isaac and the substitute ram for sacrifice foreshadowed it, the cross declares it plainly. Jesus Christ was sent by God to be a substitute for me. He took my punishment and death. “By his stripes we are healed” (Isa. 53). 1 should see this when I see the cross.

The cross of Christ tells us that atonement was made. God’s wrath is justly and divinely directed against sin and the sinner. The sinner dies and is without excuse because of his sin (Rom. 1, 2, 3). Sin is rebellion against a loving God and the wrath of God will be poured out as against Sodom and Gomorrah unless this wrath can be stilled. But man has no means to calm this wrath. How can we escape? The story of the cross has its roots in the Old Testament and the faint glimmer of hope expressed under the Law becomes a radiant light in the Gospel. When the high priest went into the Most Holy Place once each year, he brought the blood of an animal to the mercy seat on the ark of the covenant. If you will do a word study, you will find that the mercy seat is the seat of atonement-the place where the wrath of God is to be atoned. However, the blood of animals could not accomplish this great work; it remained for the blood of Christ to do it. When Jesus appeared before the throne of God with His own blood, God accepted this as atoning for the sins of the world. Atonement for sin has been made, and I should see this when I see the cross.

The cross of Christ tells us that reconciliation was made. So long as man was in sin, he could not draw nigh to God but, was in fact, an enemy. With our best intentions and greatest works, we could not bring about this healing of enmity, reconciliation. Since atonement was made by the sacrifice on the cross, it was possible for God to invite man back into a saved relationship. Paul said that this was the great work of the apostles, appointed by God to be ambassadors, entreating on behalf of God, “be ye reconciled unto God” (2 Cor. 5:18-20). Note that atonement precedes reconciliation and that God had to initiate them both due to our sinful condition. I should see this when I see the cross.

The cross of Christ tells us that fellowship with God is possible. Now that atonement has been made and reconciliation is possible, I can be forgiven. While atonement was made for the sins of the world, not all men will be saved. Not all will obey the call of the gospel through the ambassadors, the apostles, to be reconciled to God by the cross. To some, the word of the cross is foolishness; to others, it is a stumblingblock (1 Cor. 1). But if we reject the cross and the word of the cross, we reject reconciliation. If we reject reconciliaiton, we reject the peace with God that forgiveness brings. If we accept the cross, we may enter into a relationship with God reminiscent of that between Adam and Eve and God in the garden before sin intruded. Fellowship-a mutual sharing in heavenly matters-is found only in Christ. I should see this when I see the cross.

The cross of Christ tells us that I must become dead to the world and alive to God. “If then ye have been risen with Christ. . . ” (Col. 3: 1) presupposes that we have died with Christ. “For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God” (Col. 3:3). But how does one become dead to sin? “How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin” (Rom. 6:2-6).

Yes, we must crucify the old man of sin. We must walk in newness of life after having been buried in Christ. How is all this done? Paul said it is done when we are baptized. I should see this when I see the cross.

Let Us Take His Cross

There is a cross for us to bear. It is not a silver or gold ornament with no real meaning but that of vanity and false humiliation. The cross that Jesus bore was that of “obedience unto death, yea, the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:8). Our Lord said, “And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it” (Mt. 10:38,39). If we understand this, we can understand the cross of Christ. And all the ornamental jewelry and superstitious architecture in the world will not bring us any closer to the service of God unless we do understand it. Are you wearing your cross or bearing it?

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 21, pp. 641, 663-664
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