Truth Magazine

By Wallace H. Little

I hear of situations where ambitious preachers fight with elders, and as a result, churches divide. I read of situations where Diotrephes’, masquerading as elders, act as lords over God’s heritage, to divide it. I learn of situations where stubborn and willful brethren, obstinately “taking the bit in their mouths” decide they are going to have their way, run roughshod over the conscience of other brethren, and the flock is split. I find situations where “she-elders” refuse to follow the Biblical admonition of subjection; indeed, they thrust themselves into positions of control through their spineless husbands, to the splintering of God’s local churches. And lest the young people be left out, on several occasions, I have received information of situations involving willful and rebellious younger members of the church deciding they were going to “do their thing” in their personal lives, such as going to dances, social drinking and what not, and the congregations were rent asunder as a consequence. I have heard of situations where unbelieving liberals and modernists have hidden their pernicious unbelief, and working like leaven, created factions, to the dividing of a group of God’s saints.

And in all cases, it seems, “. . .think(ing) that he (they) doeth God service” (Jn. 16:2).

When, oh when, will we ever learn that we are dealing with souls?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 49, p. 792
December 11, 1980

By Earl Robertson

There is nothing inherently or basically wrong with change. In fact, in many instances it is good and healthy. However, in religion no change can be made or engaged in the word or the actions it causes. The means and methods employed in carrying out what the word of God teaches will vary in time, but the word itself remains unchanged. It is the very word of the eternal God! However, we must observe the obvious: as men are strongly determined to act from their own feelings and desires, they see the need to take liberties with and/or change the word so they can, unhesitatingly, move in their own way. Peter says some “wrest” the scriptures from their intended purpose to make them teach what God never intended (2 Pet. 3:16).

Balaam’s inability to attempt anything in opposition to God’s will stemmed from his moral reverence of God and dread of personal punishment, causing him to burst forth in mighty exclamation, “If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the word of the Lord my God, to do less or more” (Num. 22:18). Balaam had wonderful knowledge of God’s restrictions expressed unto him through His word, but it became completely obscured by his “greed for reward” (Jude 11). Though God had forbidden him to comply with the wish of Balak, he implored Balak’s princes, “I pray you, tarry ye also here this night, that I may know what the Lord will say unto me more” (Num. 22:19). More! What more could Jehovah say? The spirit of change moved into the heart of Balaam. He would now risk everything in his apostate actions.

Others, like Balaam, will walk in the unvarying counsels of God for a time but will undertake the journey of change when the price is right. The spirit exhibited in the Conferences on “Spiritual Renewals,” “Unity Meetings” and efforts for “common” ground, is the spirit of change. As a Christian Church preacher recently wrote of a “Spiritual Renewal” meeting held in a church of Christ in Nashville in January by nearly 100 from “Church of Christ, Christian Church, and Disciple of Christ heritage”. “Under the leadership of Don Finto, the elders of Belmont had announced to the congregation just the Lord’s day before our arrival that they could no longer make the non-use of musical instruments a church law. This was in recognition that God is speaking to the present generation in terms different from the way He spoke to past ones. On Wednesday Truth Magazine evening, just before Bob Yawberg spoke, a group of young adults led the worship with the aid of a guitar” (Harbinger, Too, Vol. 7, No. 2, p. 44).

So, they now think the whole objection to instrumental music in worship was just a matter of “church law.” Since it is just “church law,” they console themselves saying “God is speaking to the present generation in terms different from the way He spoke” to us in the past! The spirit of change!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 49, p. 792
December 11, 1980

By Dan Walters

The January 17, 1978, issue of the Firm Foundation contains a remarkably frank interview with Brother Hugo McCord of Oklahoma Christian College. When asked his opinion of the future of the church, Brother McCord said that there is a likely possibility that the church will “give up Bible authority, become anti-nothing, and apostatize into a denomination among denominations.” His reason for believing this is that “thorough Bible knowledge is largely non-existent in today’s church, and the pulpit man sought by most elderships is not a teacher but a promoter.” When asked his opinion as to the future of the “antis,” Brother McCord said that “most of them will continue unswervingly in their doctrine and practice regardless of any consequences.”

Here is a brother who regards the “liberals” as right and the “antis” as wrong. As much as any man in the church, he is in a position to know what is going on in the brotherhood at present, and to be aware of trends. He does not desire that the church become a denomination, yet he is strangely apathetic toward that possibility. He does not appear to be alarmed or indignant over the fact that “Bible knowledge is largely non-existent” among his brethren. This deplorable situation does not exist among the “antis,” as Brother McCord would probably admit. Among the brethren who oppose institutionalism and modern trends, preachers are still chosen for their knowledge of the Bible and their ability to teach. As a result, he predicts that these brethren will “continue unswervingly in their doctrine and practice.”

Brother McCord and other honest and intelligent men among his associates can see an apostasy in the making and they do not have confidence in their ability to stop it. They view us as wrong because we will not allow churches to contribute to human institutions, but they admit that we will otherwise continue to teach the same doctrine that we always have, and that we are not in danger of a wholesale apostasy. But the “liberals” admittedly are in such danger. Doesn’t this tell us something about the nature of their teaching and practice? If these brethren were following God’s pattern in the work and worship of the church, why would “Bible knowledge” be “largely non-existent” among them? Why would there be such a danger of radical apostasy among them?

If I may be permitted to use a personal reference by way of illustration, I was in high school at the time of the great debate over institutionalism. My own family and nearly all the brethren I knew personally decided to go along with church support of institutions and the rest of the institutional package. But I was able to obtain copies of gospel papers and written debates which presented both sides of the issues. This left me in a state of confusion for some time. Brethren with whom I discussed the matter could not give me solid scriptural arguments in support of the innovations. Yet the arguments over the orphan homes and the Herald of Truth were presented in such a complex manner that I hesitated to take a stand immediately. Without defending the institutions (which I could not do), I did not wish to break fellowship with good brethren who believed exactly as I did in other matters, but failed to understand why the institutions were wrong. In the small town of DeQueen, Arkansas, where I lived at the time, there was no “liberal spirit” and no mad rush to discard scriptural authority. It was simply a matter of disagreement on two or three specific issues.

Then I had the good fortune to attend Harding College. Without that experience I might never have realized that there was any real apostasy in progress. Looking back on that period, I find it hard to understand why any young Christian with a solid background in the scriptures and in church history could fail to see that there was something wrong at Harding. I do not speak of the college alone, but of the cross section of the brotherhood represented by the student body, and of the two large churches in Searcy where most of the students and faculty members worshiped. I learned that the problem was of afar more serious and portentous nature than the quibble about Bole’s Orphan Home being a divine institution. I was faced with a totally different concept of the church, of the restoration movement, and of scriptural authority. This new concept did not measure up to the scriptures, and it bore the unmistakable odor of denominational philosophy.

What amazed me most was the general reaction of the students to false doctrine. They seemed to have “their feet firmly planted in the air,” and to be willing, almost eager, to be carried about with every wind of doctrine. When a Christmas sermon was preached in the College Church and the preacher’s text was something Pat Boone had written and a choir sang Christmas carols, I was the only one to object. When some brother from overseas preached one Sunday night, shouting for the Holy Spirit to come down into the hearts of his listeners and succeeded in turning the service into a Pentecostal revival, and about a quarter of the audience went forward, no one protested but me. I was asked by fellow students, “How do you know that we have all the truth?” But there was no diligent effort to study and find out just what the scriptures did have to say about these and other questions, and to find out who did have the truth. The idea seemed to be that no one had the truth, that no one ever would have it, and that truth was relative. Having been raised to be honest, if I had accepted that philosophy I would have had to have apologized to all my denominational friends for having judged them to be in error.

At Harding I was able to catch a glimpse of the “mainstream” church of the future; I did not like what I saw. I learned that the arguments used to justify church contributions to orphanages could and would be used to justify church-supported colleges, hospitals, etc. I began to realize that the abandonment of scriptural authority on a few specific issues was the missing nail – that loosened the shoe – that crippled the horse – that threw the rider. I saw that the apostasy had already progressed so far at that time (1960-62) that it was impossible to stop it or even slow it down. I saw that faithful Christians, who did not want to be sucked into the Maelstrom, must heed the warning to “come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing.”

I recently had the opportunity to visit the old meeting house at Cane Ridge in Kentucky where Barton W. Stone and others made the decision to drop human creeds and to preach only the word of God. The property is now in the hands of the Disciples of Christ denomination. I was moved to stand in the pulpit and sing a verse from the old hymn, “How Firm a Foundation.” I realized that the brethren who now own the property, and who claim to be the spiritual descendants of Stone and the restorationists, have departed from the firm foundation of Christ and the Apostles, and are now floundering in the quicksand of human opinion. The Disciples of Christ denomination is one of the most liberal and modernistic religious groups in America. The division which led to the founding of this denomination was due to disagreement over two specific issues: the missionary society and instrumental music in worship. Those who did not think that they needed Bible authority for these innovations have now rejected such authority completely, and have even rejected the verbal inspiration of the scriptures. The lesson of history must not be ignored.

Today a number of young preachers have been led astray by the “unity in diversity” movement. Sometimes we hear an argument made on consequences: that refusal to fellowship all baptized believers will only result in further fragmentation of the church and will prevent it from carrying out its great mission to save the lost. Those who make the argument do not consider how their practice would have affected the course of history if they had lived in the late 1800’s. Suppose no one had taken a firm stand against that apostasy. Suppose Daniel Sommer and those brethren at Sand Creek had not declared that they could “not tolerate” such things as church festivals, the choir system, the missionary society, and the pastor system. Suppose brethren had not stood firm against the introduction of the instrument. Would there be more or fewer faithful churches in existence today?

There were a few brethren such as J.W. McGarvey and Moses E. Lard who tried to take a middle course. They did not want to use the instrument, but they did not want to make it a test of fellowship. Some of them rejected the instrument, but not the missionary society. They wanted to maintain fellowship with all segments of the restoration movement. Their influence went with the digressives. McGarvey’s funeral was held in a digressive church, and the instrument was used. By maintaining fellowship with the digressives these men were not able to slow down or stop the apostasy. If Daniel Sommer, Jacob Creath, Jr., David Lipscomb and the other strong “antis” of their day had followd the same path, many faithful churches of today would be a part of the Disciples of Christ denomination.

We must conclude that doctrinal apostasy is a terminal disease. If it is not totally removed from the body, it will rapidly spread and contaminate all the parts, until the last breath of spiritual life is extinguished and the candlestick is removed from its place. The present apostasy is moving much faster than the apostasy of the last century. Those who live in small towns and rural areas are often unaware of its extent. In addition to the original innovations we see church recreation, including kitchens and fellowship halls in meeting houses, church parties, church ball teams, church bowling leagues, church Boy Scout teams, church “family life centers,” church hobby shops, church hayrides, even church mixed swimming parties. We see the puppet ministry, worldly entertainers used to attract young people, the bus ministry with reward motivation, and junior churches. We see church kindergartens, church elementary schools, church academies, church colleges, church hospitals, church psychiatric clinics, church counseling services, and church soup kitchens. We see churches participating in Easter, Good Friday, and Christmas services with sectarians, and gospel preachers taking part in denominational seminars, worshiping and preaching in denominations, and joining ministerial alliances. We see churches sponsoring area wide or national programs with denominational names such as workshops, clinics, and retreats; churches with unscriptural officers such as youth ministers, educational directors, and recreational directors. We see services with dim lights, hand holding, cross burning, mixed-sex chain prayers, etc. We see loosened moral standards including toleration of immodest clothing, mixed swimming, women dressing like men and men wearing their hair like women, and churches taking in adulterers and other impenitent sinners who have been withdrawn from. We see the teaching of the direct operation of the Holy Spirit, modern miracles, etc. With all of this activity there is apparently little time for old-time Bible teaching and so “thorough Bible knowledge is largely non-existent.”

Because all of these things are not going on at the same time in the same church some may think that the picture is overdrawn. But the point is that if one “liberal” church is not engaged in all these things, it is still in full fellowship with many brethren and churches which are doing them. Warnings are heard on every hand, but none of these brethren, however much they may oppose church colleges or anything else, are taking a firm stand and refusing to fellowship error. That is what makes the difference between a “conservative liberal” and an “anti”. These brethren know that the left wing is in firm control of their papers, their colleges, and their larger congregations. To oppose such entrenched power will mean ostracism and isolation. That is why Brother McCord knows that his brethren are likely to “apostatize into a denomination.” Because we have taken a stand, at great cost and sacrifice, is why Brother McCord knows that we “will continue unswervingly in” our “doctrine and practice.” Thanks for the compliment, Brother McCord.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 49, pp. 790-791
December 11, 1980

By Mike Willis

Through the years, denominationalism has changed. The attitudes of denominationalists which demonstrated themselves on the American frontier and which the Campbells confronted was one of bitter division. Each Protestant denomination was at war with Roman Catholicism and with every other Protestant denomination. Even within their own ranks, Protestant denominations fought bitterly, refusing to serve the Lord’s Supper to those from whom they were divided.

This picture does not describe the mainstream of twentieth century Protestant denominationalism. Today mainstream denominationalism is much more ecumenical. These modern denominations have accepted a policy of peaceful co-existence, if not actively working to effect some kind of merger of their respective sects. The historical heritage of each denomination might be considered as something of which a given group of people may be proud but it is seldom understood in the sense of being the only way to salvation.

Unfortunately, some gospel preachers are still fighting the denominationalism which existed several decades ago without taking note of so-called modern trends. We are generally very familiar with the creeds of denominationalism; in many cases, we know the creeds of a given church better than most of the members and some of the preachers of that church. However, modern denominationals generally could care less what their creeds say, for religion has little to do with doctrinal belief.

This change is not all that recent. In 1951, Yater Tant described denominationalism of his day as follows:

. . .Almost nobody cares anything at all about denominational lines, denominational doctrines, denominational shibboleths. Even the preachers themselves, committed to an upholding of the denominational peculiarities, are, for the most part, either uninformed or indifferent about much of their traditional teaching. On the contrary, the unforgivable heresy now is to do or teach anything that is distinctive. The whole emphasis in current denominational thought is on those broad general principles and ideals which nobody can question; preachers preach platitudes that even the Jew and the Mohammedan would sanction (“Protestant Preachers and Proselytism,” Gospel Guardian, Vol. II, No. 43, p. 4).

This is a rather accurate description of much of modern denominationalism. I am afraid that some of our preachers have not taken note of the change in position of modern denominationalism; some of us are still fighting the old form of denominationalism, which few people believe any longer. Perhaps this is because some of us are not informing ourselves about denominationalism or because we find it easier to preach an old sermon outline than to prepare one which deals with the denominational departures of our day. However, the departures of modern denominationalism need to receive more attention in our pulpits.

The Stance Of Modern Denominationalism

1. Ecumenism. One of the major thrusts of modern denominationalism has been the ecumenical movement. The desire for religious unity is certainly to be commended. However, the basis for unity which has been followed by the modern ecumenical movement is not the same as the basis for unity described in the Bible. The ecumenical movement seems to approach religion by reducing it to its lowest common denominator. When the lowest common denominator is found, unity can be had with everyone who has that common denominator.

The ecumenical movement has such a broad thrust that it is willing to consider unity with non-Christian religions. By extending overtures of unity to pagan religions, the ecumenical movement has reduced religion to any groping by man to have contact with something or someone called God or god.

Even among more conservative groups of denominationalism, the unity movement is being felt. Fundamentalist groups have a good rapport with each other. There is no present attempt to merge all of the Fundamentalist groups into one large denomination, as is presently being attempted by modernist groups seeking to form the Church of Christ Uniting; however, even the Fundamentalist groups, with few exceptions, have stopped fighting with each other. They have apparently agreed to recognize that each group can go to heaven in its respective way.

2. Gospel-doctrine. The theological justification for this approach to unity is based on some supposed distinction between gospel and doctrine. There is supposed to be a core group of beliefs which all men hold in common which all must accept; the rest of the Bible is apparently not revealed as clearly as this core gospel, inasmuch as denominationalism holds that doctrinal sections will never be agreed upon. Hence, doctrinal differences can and should be tolerated so long as one accepts the basic gospel.

The problem with this position, aside from the fact that it is not revealed in the Scriptures, is that there is no possible way of distinguishing the gospel from the doctrine. No one has given the final or absolute criteria by which one determines which part of the Scriptures is to be labeled as doctrine, allowing for differences in belief, and what part of the Scriptures is to be labeled gospel, demanding doctrinal uniformity. The result has been that the more liberal group simply applies the same rules to all of the Bible as the more conservative groups apply to part of the Bible. The liberal groups do not demand doctrinal agreement on the virgin birth, the inspiration of the Scriptures, the miracles of Christ, the deity of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, the nature of God, and the person of God. One can believe just about anything and maintain fellowship with the liberal groups of denominationalism. The more conservative groups, however, have chosen to abide in their inconsistency, demanding unity in gospel (whatever that might be) and diversity in doctrine.

3. Salvation For Sincere Men. Modern denominationalism also accepts the idea that so long as a man is good, honest, and sincere, he can be saved regardless of what he might choose to believe. Hence, modern denominationalism is fully prepared to admit that a person can be a member of any denomination or no denomination and go to heaven. The more liberal, modernist denominations extend this to include pagan religions. Their ideas of subjective truth (“if you think it is true, it is true for you”) allow every man to believe whatever he chooses and every man be right, despite the fact that the respective beliefs of several men conflict with each other.

This results in faith having validity not on the basis of the contents of what is believed but on the basis of believing. There is no virtue in the act of believing; what is important is what is believed. However, if one takes the subjective approach to truth and the position that “it doesn’t make any difference what a man believes, just so he is honest in it,” the result is the annihilation of the Christian faith. If it does not matter what a man believes, then it would not and could not matter whether he believes at all or not. It would not matter whether he believed in the virgin birth of Christ, if he were honest in rejecting it. It would not matter whether he believed in the resurrection, or even in the divinity of Christ if he were completely honest in rejecting such items. He could reject the transfiguration, the miracles, the crucifixion, and even the very existence of Christ, if he were sincere and honest in such rejections, and still be saved.

This concept of modern denominationalism is contrary to the revelation of the gospel which demands that one believe the truth in order to be saved (Jn. 8:32). There is no salvation available to those who reject the gospel (Mk. 16:16), regardless of how honest and sincere they might be (Jn. 14:6).

4. Condemn no one. Another tenet of modern denominationalism, though not generally expressed, seems to be that just about anything can be accepted, except a position which condemns the religion of another man. The denominationals can fellowship each other, despite the glaring conflicts in their doctrines. The one thing that they cannot accept is the simple gospel preacher who preaches the unique and distinctive message of the gospel. The reason for this is that the gospel preacher is actively seeking to convert their members from denominationalism to Christ; hence, they must unite to destroy his influence.

The end result of this position is presently becoming rather obnoxious to some Fundamentalist groups. They are quite concerned with the appointment of homosexuals and women as clergy persons. They are- witnessing the destruction of their faith by the appointment of infidels to positions of authority and power. Some of them are already ready to fight modernism’s application of the principles which they themselves have adopted!

Application For Us

The failure of some among us to preach on the themes of modern denominationalism, choosing instead to preach against the divisive denominationalism of a bygone era, is manifesting itself today in the grace-unity movement. If you will notice the main tenets of twentieth century, Protestant denominationalism, you will observe that the main tenets of the grace-unity movement which we are presently opposing are basically identical with those of modern denominationalism. Compare these following tenets with those of modern denominationalism mentioned above:

1. Ecumenism. It is no accident that what we are dealing with is a unity movement. That is the main thrust of modern denominationalism; the main difference is that the restoration movement is limited to a group described as the “heirs of the restoration movement.”

2. Gospel-doctrine. Anyone who has read very much written by the grace-unity brethren recognizes that the gospel-doctrine distinction is the basis for their being able to extend fellowship to those involved in doctrinal apostasies.

3. Salvation For Sincere Men. About every writer of the grace-unity movement has had something to say about the grace of God taking care of the sins of ignorance and the weaknesses of the flesh before and without repentance. Some provide for this through the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ and others through some system of automatic grace.

4. Condemn no one. Anyone vaguely familiar with the writings of Ketcherside and Garrett will testify that the thrust of their material is aimed, not toward those who have perverted the worship, mission, and organization of the church, but toward those who have opposed these perversions. Any perversion can be tolerated. But, the faithful gospel preacher who calls for repentance cannot be tolerated.

Our failure to keep abreast with the changes of Protestant denominationalism and to preach concerning the main tenets of denominationalism, emphasizing the truth of God’s word and exposing the errors of denominationalism, is a contributing factor to what successes the grace-unity movement has had among us. The solution appears to me to be to preach specific lessons on some of the very topics listed above, showing wherein these depart from the revelation of God’s word.

Conclusion

We must continue to call for unity. However, the form of unity which we need to preach is not some organizational merger of existing denominations or some form of unity-in-diversity which simply ignores the major doctrinal differences among us. Rather, we should preach the unity based on the revelation of God’s word. To achieve that unity, all denominational organizations, names, doctrines, creeds, and distinctive features must be abandoned. Every member of each denomination must become simply a Christian, having been buried through baptism into Christ (Rom. 6:4). He must be willing to work, worship and live as an humble member of the New Testament church. When and if that spirit is present, then unity is not only possible, it will be inevitable.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 49, pp. 787-789
December 11, 1980