Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

As the restoration leaders began to study themselves out of denominationalism, they found that what they had previously believed about baptism was wrong. In addition to discovering that the action of baptism was immersion, they also found that the only proper subject to be baptized was a penitent believer. This was contrary to the former beliefs and practices of many of the leaders among them. Nevertheless, they were committed to following the Bible rather than human creeds and traditions. Consequently, they committed themselves to the word of God and rejected their creeds for the Bible.

Particularly was this the case with Alexander Campbell. On 13 March 1812, Campbell’s wife gave birth to his first child whom he named Jane. Prior to this time, Campbell had not made the careful examination of the Scriptures which he needed to make in order to find out what they taught on this subject. However, he was now faced with the question of whether or not he should have his infant sprinkled. Soon he became convinced that there was no Bible authority for infant sprinkling. Robert Richardson records the history of Campbell’s change;

. . . Admitting that infant baptism was without warrant, the question began to assume quite a different aspect, and was no longer, “May we safely reject infant baptism as a human invention?” but, ‘May we omit believers’ baptism, which all admit to be divinely commanded?” If the baptism of infants be without warrant, it is invalid, and they who receive it are, in point of fact, still unbaptized (Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, Vol. I, pp. 393-394).

Campbell became convinced that he had not been baptized. Soon Campbell contacted Matthias Luce to baptize him and several other members of his family. At that time, he became convinced that infant sprinkling was unauthorized of God and that those who received it needed to be baptized in obedience to Christ’s commandment.

One hundred sixty-eight years have passed since that event. Already signs are beginning to manifest themselves that this truth, discovered and expounded for so many years, is beginning to be lost. I make this statement on the basis of the writings of some among us who are stating that those who have never received an immersion in water as a penitent believer shall nevertheless receive salvation. Writers in Restoration Review, Ensign Fair, Mission, and some other periodicals openly admit that they are prepared to extend the right hands of fellowship to those who have simply received infant sprinkling. Whether openly admitted or not, such statements result in the affirmative position that one can be saved without being immersed in water and that baptism is acceptable in the sight of God without being preceded by faith and repentance. Though no one to my knowledge has avowed infant sprinkling among us, several are ready to extend fellowship to those who do.

As testimony that several are willing to extend fellowship to some who preach infant sprinkling, consider these statements from Leroy Garrett.

When I say this is no problem to me, I simply mean that I do not conclude that a brother necessarily rejects Christ when he leaves what we call the “Church of Christ.” Going to the Presbyterians might be a matter of conscience, not a lack of it, an act of faith and not faithlessness (Restoration Review, Vol. 21, No., 4, April, 1979, p. 77).

And I realized more than I was able to 30 years ago that these Presbyterians are also my sisters and brothers in Christ (Restoration Review, Vol. 20, No. 9, November 1978, p. 168).

Only recently I heard a reforming Methodist, laboring within his own context for that one, great, spiritual community of God on earth. Praise God that he is using this man where he is! He is talking to Methodists, in their language and out of their history, of a better and more spiritual way. It would be folly for me to try to take him from his own people, converting him to the Church of Christ . . . . I met with a group of Roman Catholics a few times recently, some of them being business associates of ours, who are really turned on to Jesus. In their own “sanctuary,” with their priests sitting with us, I laid before them a long view of the scheme of redemption in scripture, God’s eternal purpose in Christ. These folk want their people to get with it and turn to Jesus, and they are working to that end in various mini-meetings. How foolish it would be for me to try to bring them into “the Church of Christ. . .” ( Restoration Review, Vol. XVI, No. 9, November 1974, p. 367).

Notice that Garrett and those who accept what he teaches are willing to extend the right hand of fellowship to those who have never been immersed into Christ for the remission of their sins. He is willing to extend fellowship to those who follow the creeds of men with reference to infant sprinkling.

Infant Sprinkling And The Creeds

The creeds of men are the best authority that can be found for infant sprinkling. They are very specific in granting to men the right to have their children sprinkled and admitted into covenant relationship with God on the basis of the parents’ faith. Here are some sample creeds:

Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXVIII, No. 4).

Let every adult Person, and the Parents of every Child to be baptized, have the choice of sprinkling, pouring, or immersion (Discipline of the Methodist Church, 1940, p. 602).

13. We believe that Christian baptism is a sacrament signifying acceptance of the benefits of the atonement of Jesus Christ, to be administered to believers, as declarative of their faith in Jesus Christ as their Saviour, and full purpose of obedience of holiness and righteousness.

Baptism being the symbol of the New Testament, young children may be baptized, upon request of parents or guardians who shall give assurance for them of necessary Christian training (Manual of the Church of the Nazarene, 1944, p. 30).

In the book Facts of the Faith by Monsignor J. D. Conway, which contains the Catholic imprimatur, the following statement about infant baptism is made:

It is because of the essential necessity of this sacrament that the Church insists on the Baptism of little children as soon as possible after their birth. If the tiny child is in any serious danger of death, he should be baptized at once, and any person who knows how to do it and who wants to do it can baptize. If there is time, of course the priest should be called. He is the regular minister of baptism. If there is not time, then a lay person may do it. All he has to do is to pour water on the head of the child and say while pouring it, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” The church naturally prefers that a Catholic person do the baptizing, but if a Catholic is not available, then a baptized Protestant may very well do it, and if no baptized person is available, then the Baptism can be given by a non-baptized person. It is not even necessary that he believe personally in Baptism. It is only required that he perform this ceremony properly and that he intend to do what the Church wishes done in Baptism.

In spite of all the care that we may use, it does occasionally happen that a baby dies without Baptism. What happens to that baby? As far as we can know, it has never received the life of heaven into its little soul, and without the life of heaven it cannot get into heaven. It does not have the capacity or ability to see God or to live in union with God. Its little human soul is not capable of living in the rarefied spiritual atmosphere of heaven. It would be lost if it got there. We must keep in mind that heaven is a free gift of God, that no one has a claim to it. Since our nature is not adapted to it, we make no natural demand for it.

Of course we know that Almighty God in his goodness and justice will not punish anyone unless he is personally guilty of sin. No baby will suffer positive punishment or the loss of natural happiness because of the sin of Adam, or the sins of the human race. But that does not mean that the unbaptized child will be able to live above its nature and perform functions of which it is naturally incapable.

It is the traditional belief of Catholic theologians that Almighty God has provided a place of natural happiness for these children who die without Baptism. For want of a better word, we call the place Limbo (pp. 142-143).

These creeds and statements of belief give us some idea what the denominational world is teaching about infants receiving baptism. These are the doctrinal beliefs held by those to whom some of our brethren are willing to extend fellowship.

What Saith The Scriptures?

Having read the doctrinal statements of those who teach that baptism can and should be administered to babies and noticing that some of our more liberal brethren are ready to extend fellowship to those who so teach, we now turn to the Scriptures to find out who is the proper candidate for baptism.

1. Baptism is for the sinner. Inasmuch as baptism has for its purpose the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Mk. 16:16), it is assumed that the person to be baptized is guilty of sin. Sin is not something which is inherited (Ezek. 18:20); it is an action of an individual in which he disobeys the law of God (1 Jn. 3:4). Consequently, the infant is not in need of baptism inasmuch as he has not violated God’s law and, therefore, is not a sinner.

2. A person must be taught before he is a proper subject far baptism. The Scriptures clearly teach that one is drawn to Christ by teaching. 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. 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. 6:44-45). Notice that no one can come to Jesus without being drawn to Him by God; one is drawn by God through hearing and learning of the Father. Inasmuch as a child cannot hear and learn, he could never be a proper subject for baptism. Infant sprinklers teach that one can come to God without being drawn by God! In the Great Commission, Jesus said, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them . . .” (Matt. 28:19). One must be taught before he can be baptized.

3. A person must believe in Christ before he can be properly baptized. Jesus “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved . . .” (Mk. 16:15-16). The gospel must be preached and the person must believe it before he is ready to be baptized. Obviously, an infant cannot do this; consequently, he is not qualified to be baptized.

When Philip preached the gospel to the Ethiopian eunuch, “they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If though believest with all thine heart, thou mayest” (Acts 8:36-37). Notice that Philip told the eunuch that one must believe before he can be baptized. An infant consequently cannot be properly baptized inasmuch as he cannot believe the gospel of Jesus Christ.

4. A person must repent of his sins before he can be baptized. On the day of Pentecost, Peter preached the first gospel sermon. Peter charged those who were present with participating in the murder of Jesus Christ. Apparently he convinced them of their sin because they were “pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:37-38). Notice that one had to repent of his sins before his immersion in water did him any good. We have properly understood this for many years, teaching that one simply gets wet if he is immersed without genuinely deciding to quit practicing sin.

For the subject of infant baptism, we notice two things: (1) an infant has no ability to repent and (2) and infant has no sins of which he needs to repent. Consequently, an infant could never be a proper subject of baptism inasmuch as he cannot repent of sins.

5. A person must confess his faith in Christ before he can be baptized. Christ has only authorized a person to baptize believers. The only way that I have of knowing that a person is a believer is for him to tell me that in some way. Inasmuch as an infant has no ability to believe and no ability to indicate that he believes, he cannot be considered a fit subject for baptism.

Inherited Sin And Infant Sprinkling

The testimony of the Scriptures and the testimony of the early Christians show that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. The belief that baptism was essential to salvation was coupled with the doctrine of inherited sin to produce the practice of infant sprinkling. In the years after the close of the New Testament canon, the doctrine arose that the sin of Adam was transmitted to the entire race. A person was supposed to have been born guilty of the sin of Adam; this was taught in spite of the fact that Ezek. 18:20 teaches otherwise, Infant baptism was started to grant forgiveness of the guilt of inherited sin. Read the following statements:

The theorist of baptism who has been influential for succeeding ages in S. Augustine . . . . The first effect of baptism is the forgiveness of sins, which extends itself to all sins, both to all actual sin and also to original sin. This latter sinfulness, inherited from Adam, would indeed alone suffice, without actual sin, to bring man to damnation, as too, infants dying unbaptized are excluded from the Kingdom of heaven in consequence of original sin, and live in the world beyond in some form of perdition, even if of the mildest kind. Baptism has effect upon original sin, in the sense that it takes from it is character of guilt; thereby free access to God and His heavenly kingdom is opened . . . . (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1944 edition, Vol. III, p. 84).

The early controversies regarding infant baptism seem to have centered on whether or not infants needed baptism (M’Clintock and Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. I, p. 648). As the view of Augustine prevailed, baptism was administered to infants to take away the guilt of Adam’s sin.

Conclusion

Bible baptism was never administered to infants! The person to be baptized in the New Testament was always an individual who had heard the gospel preached, believed it, and repented of his sins. No one who had not done these things was considered a proper subject of baptism.

Those among us who are willing to extend fellowship to those who teach and practice infant sprinkling are compromising on what the Scriptures reveal about salvation and baptism. They may state that they personally do not believe in infant sprinkling but so long as they are willing to fellowship those who do, their statements to the contrary are rather hollow.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 37, pp. 595-597
September 18, 1980

By P.J. Casebolt

I am persuaded that, in many things, our practice comes perilously close to violating our preaching. The Pharisees and the scribes were good (or bad) examples in this respect (Mt. 23:3). None of us are immune to this tendency and our inconsistency can be seen by others-better than vie-can see it ourselves. Just because our practice does not keep pace with our preaching, this incongruity does not necessarily prove that our preaching wrong, but it surely does play havoc with the effectiveness of said preaching.

The Lord knew what kind of government was best for His church. Christ was to be the head of His church (Eph. 1:22, 23), each congregation was to be autonomous (Acts 14:23; 20:28), and the apostles not only introduced this type of government, but they observed and respected it after its introduction (Phil. 1:1; Acts 21:18). This system was so effective and efficient that the devil lost no time trying to undermine it and, in every departure from the faith, he has had effective assistance from brethren within the church. It would be difficult to stress these truths too much, and we should be suspicious of all efforts to the contrary.

After preaching in a certain county, the preacher returned home and printed a statement in his bulletin that he had just closed a meeting with the only local congregation in that county. There were twenty-five other congregations in that county, and there were several others who knew more about those congregations than did the preacher who made the statement. In fact, some of us knew more about the congregation where he had preached, than did he. By this time, he has probably learned as much, but this untimely assertion did not make it any easier for those who were trying to persuade some of those congregations to take a stand for the truth.

Another preacher located with a congregation which had previously been the center of much confusion and trouble. All preachers, elders, and congregations for miles around knew the history of that congregation, and that its problems had nothing to do with “institutionalism.” Yet, this preacher immediately began to chide other congregations and preachers in the area by means of his bulletin. Maybe some needed chiding and maybe none of them would have taken a stand for truth on the institutional question anyway, but the preacher doing the provoking was in no favorable position to chide anyone.-After a few months, he realized his mistake and publicly acknowledged such in his bulletin. He also exited the congregation from whence he had been making his editorial sallies.

On another occasion, a new congregation had just been started in a certain town. Some of us were reasonably certain that it would eventually embrace liberal positions and practices, but could not prove it at the time. At a social gathering of preachers, one of the preachers asked the rest of the group what we were going to do about the new congregation. My reply was that I had turned over the announcements and information (which I had received), to the elders where I preached and that it would be up to them to make such a decision.

After a few years of supporting a radio program on the local station, the elders where I preached decided to discontinue the program. The program seemed to be doing little if any good, it was expensive, and the elders decided to use the money to help start a new congregation. After the elders made their decision, a former preacher for the congregation, who at this time was preaching for another congregation, complained to me about the decision to discontinue the program. When I told him that the elders had made the decision, he was very emphatic in stating that I should have used my influence to alter their decision. I told him that I not only preached that elders were to oversee the flock, but that I practiced it.

Now, maybe some of these instances to which I have referred do not constitute a violation of congregational autonomy, but I think they are sufficiently related to the subject for us to draw some profitable conclusions from them. First, preachers need to constantly remind themselves that they do not run the affairs of a congregation and, if necessary, the elders need to remind them. And, if elders try to delegate this authority to preachers, the elders need to be reminded that such cannot be done. The Lord has already delegated in this matter, and it cannot be changed.

Secondly, even when other congregations practice things contrary to apostolic doctrine, we still need to recognize the principle of congregational autonomy. This course does not preclude our making a solemn protest against anything that is contrary to sound doctrine (1 Sam. 8:9), nor does it require that we endorse and bid God speed to any false practice or teaching. But, if we violate the principle of congregational self-government, even for what we consider to be a “good cause,” that action may turn to haunt us before too long.

Above all, before we rush into print or into the pulpit with utterances which may adversely affect the very cause we are trying to promote, let us ascertain the validity of those things we write and speak. There will be enough “confusion of face” when we are told to mind our own business, but even more so when our “facts” turn to fiction.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 37, p. 594
September 18, 1980

By Eugene Crawley

Among the many things that Paul wrote to the saints at Rome is the statement: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” (1:16). This is only one of the many passages written by this inspired man that testifies to the fact that he was unashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Many are the times when he exhibited his stand for the truth against error, even in the face of opposition and persecution.

This great apostle should be an example to us, not only in this, but in a number of other things in his faithful, consecrated service in the Master’s kingdom. One should be “ashamed to be afraid” and “afraid to be ashamed” of the gospel of the Son of God; yet such seems to be the case with many in the world today, and not a few in the church of our Lord. The many schemes, campaigns and promotions to draw the crowd, instead of the simple and powerful message of Christ, the gospel, proves that some have lost respect for the gospel and its power. Paul’s love for the truth and the souls of men led him to not be ashamed or afraid of the “power of God to save.” And, so it should be with men today, and so it is with all who have the proper love and respect for both the truth and the souls of men and women. This love will prompt men to stand for the truth at every opportunity, and will cause them always to appeal to truth, not to human prejudice nor the devices of men. They will also welcome the opportunity to defend the truth which they proclaim.

Truth has nothing to fear, is aggressive and unrelenting, and those who hold to the truth for the love of the truth, have no fear of that which they have embraced. “But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God” (John 3:21). Thus, where there is any difference, doubt, or question, truth will deal with it openly instead of trying to conceal it. The very fact that folk try to conceal (or keep a matter quiet) is evidence that they are in doubt about the matter for which they claim to stand, and are afraid it will not stand the test of the Scriptures.

When a man’s aim is to know and abide in truth, he is willing to hear any truth, and is also willing to have his teaching examined and discussed openly. This is so, for if he does not have all the truth, he wants to have and desires that everyone else have all the truth; for he knows that only the truth, yet all the truth, is the only thing that will make men free from sin. Our Lord said, “For everyone that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds be reproved” (John 3:20). This is the reason some fear investigation, and refuse to defend their cause, even claiming not to believe in debates. When one finds this to be true, he can know that such are afraid of their position, their teaching; they cannot afford to have the light of truth turned upon their teaching and practice. All should become suspicious of those who so act, and should investigate the word of God so as to know the truth that makes one free from sin.

It is truly worth repeating that truth has nothing to fear; those who refuse open study and discussion of any teaching, especially when they claim to preach the gospel, are by their actions saying they are either ashamed or afraid of the gospel. Are you ashamed of the gospel of Christ? Remember, it is the power of God to save and, thus, the only means by which one can be saved from sin. Then, are you willing to learn the truth? You can by studying, investigating, the word of God. In fact, you can have all the truth that anyone else can have on every religious subject. You have access to the same Bible in which it is to be found. Why not resolve then to study it, learn the truth, obey it, and stand for that which is the will of God? Be neither ashamed nor afraid of the gospel, God’s truth, for it will stand forever (1 Pet. 1:25).

Truth Magazine XXIV: 37, p. 593
September 18, 1980

By Jack H. Kirby

The issues that arose in and divided the Lord’s church in the 1950s and 60s had their beginning back in the 1930s. In 1938, brother G.C. Brewer, at the Abilene Christian College Lectures, made a statement that the church that did not have ACC in its budget had the wrong preacher. Brother Brewer had advocated church support of the colleges operated by brethren as far back as 1935. In the August 1, 1935, issue of the Gospel Advocate, he wrote that the church where he preached had put ACC in their budget for $1000 per year.

Prior to that time it was generally understood that there was no authority for the church contributing money to any human institution. Brother Brewer’s contention was immediately challenged, and brethren did not accept his suggestion.

Before 1938, little had been said about church supported orphan’s homes. There were only three or four, the oldest established in 1909. After the college question was defeated, its promoters began a new issue, the orphan home question. They argued that church support of colleges and orphan homes was directly parallel. Now they had an emotional appeal, the “poor little ragged, hungry, cold, orphan.” This was a smart move on their part. They had been defeated on the college question, but now with emotion they contended that if the church could support an orphan home they could support the college. They failed to give biblical authority for either.

In 1947, the colleges again started a drive for church support. Brother Robert M. Alexander began speaking to churches urging their support of ACC’s post-war building program. Again brethren rose up in opposition, and the attention again went to the orphan home question. Brethren generally refused to accept the “college in the budget” idea, but many were convinced that the church could support orphan’s homes. Much discussion was carried in the Gospel Advocate and the Bible Banner.

In the October 23, 1947 issue of the Gospel Advocate, brother N.B. Hardeman, president of Freed-Hardeman College, wrote:

I have always believed that a church has the right to contribute to a school or an orphanage if it so desired . . . . The right to contribute to one is the right to contribute to the other. Note the parallel: (1) The school is a human institution; it has a board of directors; it teaches secular branches in connection with the Bible. (2) An orphan home is a human institution; it has a board of directors; it teaches secular branches in connection with the Bible. The same principle that permits one must also permit the other. They must stand or fall together.

Bro. Hardeman contended that they both did the work of the church.

The fight began to rage, and emotions were high. Hardeman’s article had hit the heart of the issue and pointed up wide-spread inconsistency. Many churches were sending token support to orphan homes. It was an excellent strategy on Hardeman’s part. It took the heat off the schools, and put the light on poor little hungry, cold, orphans. When some brethren opposed church support of the homes, they were charged as being orphan haters. Institutional thinking brethren saw in this issue an opportunity to soften opposition to churches contributing to human organizations.

Brother A.B. Barrett, co-founder of ACC wrote in the Gospel Advocate, July 9, 1931 issue:

There were no “brotherhood colleges”, “church papers”, “church orphanages”, “old folk’s homes”, and the like, among apostolic congregations . . . the churches established by the apostles did not contribute to any organization other than a sister congregation. All “church” movements should be kept under the local congregation.

Foy E. Wallace, Jr., the leading opponent of this new apostacy wrote in the July 2, 1931 issue of the Gospel Advocate:

If it were “permissible” to have a Bible college as an adjunct to the church in the work of education and an orphan’s home in the work of benevolence, we quite agree that it would also be “permissible” to have a missionary society in the work of evangelization. But the question assumes the point to be proved. Nothing is “permissible” as an auxiliary of the church which is not Scriptural.

Wallace argued that there was no way the church could delegate its work to any board or human organization other than the local church.

Other Issues Arising

Other issues were arising during this time, such as congregational cooperation, church furnished entertainment, youth meetings, church dinners, etc. Following World War Il, the Broadway church in Lubbock, Texas, had become the “sponsoring church” for “missionary work” in Germany. They began in 1947 to receive funds from other churches to support brother Otis Gatewood in Germany. The Union Avenue church in Memphis, Tennessee, became the sponsoring church for the work in Japan, and the Brownfield, Texas church for the work in Italy. Thus the autonomy of the local church began to be violated.

Brother Hardeman had strongly condemned this type operation in his Nashville Tabernacle Sermons in 1928 (Vol. III, page 78). He said:

Every congregation known to the Bible is a unit within itself. The autonomy of each individual congregation is as clearly taught in the Book of God as any other one thing therein found. And there is no such thing as a blending, or forming of any kind of an alliance or relationship between one congregation and another. A cooperation is taught in the Bible. Organization other than the individual congregation is unknown to God’s book.

He clearly showed that.the “sponsoring church” arrangement was erroneous almost twenty years before it began to be popular.

Church-Furnished Entertainment

Another issue that began to emerge was that of churchfurnished entertainment and recreation. More and more in the late 1940s, new ideas about local church programs were evident. One of them was that we have to do something special for the young people, or we are going to lose them. The denominations had set the pace with all kinds of social and recreational programs for their youth, so our brethren followed their lead. This idea was also attacked by brother Hardeman in his Tabernacle Sermons, and the books were widely read. He specifically condemned the practice in his 1943 series. He said:

I have failed to find anywhere in the Bible where there is a difference made in teaching or church work between a young fellow and an old one. Just where is the passage which intimates that the church should be divided according to years?

The Gospel Guardian

In the spring of 1949, the Gospel Guardian was again put into print. It had been published back in 1935 by Foy E. Wallace, Jr., but had been suspended in favor of the Bible Banner. This paper began to question the “brotherhood-wide” arrangements and “sponsoring churches. ” Church support of colleges, the national radio program sponsored by the Highland church in Abilene, Texas, called The Herald of Truth, sponsoring churches, etc. were all discussed upon its pages. The Gospel Guardian kept its columns open for the presentation of both sides of these issues, but the Firm Foundation in Austin, Texas, and the Gospel Advocate closed their pages to those they called “anti’s,” those who opposed the collective arrangements. The Gospel Advocate called for a quarantine of all preachers who would oppose these arrangements.

It was in 1952 that we first heard of a new departure, the aforementioned Herald of Truth. The first broadcast was on February 10, 1952. One thousand churches were urged to send funds to the Highland church to support the radio broadcasts. It had originated in Iowa with two young preachers, James Walter Nichols and James Willeford. After starting it, they began to seek out a church to take the oversight and, finally, the Highland church agreed to sponsor it. Little was said in opposition to the program until Glen L. Wallace, preacher for the College church in Abilene, asked some very pertinent questions about its scripturalness in the Gospel Guardian, December 17, 1953 issue. Wallace questioned the size of the budget, the amount of overhead, the sectarian name, the human organizational arrangement, and the “world-wide brotherhood activity” feature. He stated that he had always preached that an organization larger than a local church is larger than a New Testament church, and is, therefore, not a New Testament church.

Brother Wallace’s article was the beginning of a storm of opposition to the Herald of Truth. It then became a part of the raging discussion of congregational cooperation occasioned by the sponsoring arrangements of Broadway, Union Avenue, Brownfield, and the other sponsoring churches.

During this time there was a constant undercurrent with reference to orphan homes and the Herald of Truth. Churches began to divide as a result of brethren forcing the support of these things into the treasury of the local church.

Yellow Tag Of Quarantine

In the Decemeber 9, 1954, issue of the Gospel Advocate, one writer suggested that certain opposers to brotherwise projects be quarantined. The statement was given space on the editorial page. Here are his words:

I trust you will not consider me presumptuous if I suggest that perhaps the writers for the Gospel Advocate might wisely spearhead a movement to quarantine those preachers who today are sowing seeds of discord among the brotherhood and to thus prevent further division.

The preachers referred to were the opposers of church support of colleges, orphan homes, Herald of Truth, and other human institutions and arrangements supported by local churches. This along with another significant event that happened almost at the same time, started the forcing out of brethren from churches where they had worked, in some cases for a lifetime.

On October 17, 1954, brother G.H.P. Showalter died. He had been editor of the Firm Foundation for over forty years. He was a fair man, and allowed both sides to be heard in his paper. Soon after his death, brother Reuel Lemmons became its editor, and strong positions favoring human institutions began to appear. These two events marked the beginning of many church divisions. Brethren were forced to leave buildings and congregations that they had helped build, and were forced to start over from scratch. This was the pattern all over the country. Preachers were being “fired,” and gospel meetings of these preachers were being cancelled. When the problem arose in a church, someone who was trying to promote the orphan home, college, or sponsoring church into the budget would repeat some misrepresentation of some preacher or members in the area or in the congregation. This is what many used to win support for their positions instead of scripture.

Debates

Debates soon began to be conducted between brethren over these issues. One of the first was between brethren Charles Holt, W.L. Totty, and Sterl A. Watson. It was in Indianapolis in October, 1954. Perhaps the largest from standpoint of attendance were the two debates involving Yater Tant and E.R. Harper. Tant was the editor of the Gospel Guardian and Harper was the preacher for the Highland Church in Abilene, Texas. These debates were held in Lufkin, Texas in April, 1955, and in Abilene, Texas, in November of that year. One thousand preachers were in attendance, and the crowds numbered upwards of 1700 people.

Another debate was between Cecil Douthitt and Thomas. W. Warren. It was conducted in Houston in October, 1956. Douthitt raised a question in his first speech that set up an obstacle that Warren could never surmount. It was “Where shall we stop in the sponsoring church arrangement?” Just how many sponsoring churches shall we have? Shall we stop at the diocesean level, or go to the national or international level? Warren would never answer this.

Support Of Colleges

In 1958 the college question was re-opened in an attempt to get the colleges in the church budgets. Brother J.D. Thomas, Professor of Bible at ACC, wrote a book called We Be Brethren, in which he contended that churches can scripturally make contributions to “Christian schools.” With the majority of the churches swept up in the rush to originate and support human organizations, and with the exodus of the conservative element from most churches, the colleges generally achieved their goal. Churches all over the country are now supporting the colleges from their treasuries.

Our Situation Today

By the mid-1960s, division in the church was practically a total reality. Those who were contending for Bible authority in all things generally had to leave their home congregations in order to worship God in all good conscience. The others who favored the institutional approach generally kept the buildings, and moved more and more into liberalism and the social gospel. It is not unusual at all now, in fact it is the rule, to see fellowship halls, kitchens, game rooms, etc. in buildings owned by these churches.

These are heading more and more toward total denominationalism. Churches and preachers are joining ministerial alliances with denominations. These are exchanging pulpits on Sundays and other days with denominational preachers. One preacher even spoke to the Methodist church in his home town on how to build up their membership. History alone will record just how far these will go in the path of denominationalism, but every indication shows that they are travelling the same path those traveled in the last century who eventually became the digressive Christian Church.

Admonition To Conservative Brethren

While we must always be on guard that we do not practice or advocate anything that is not,,authorized by God’s word; yet we must realize that we are not just to be against departures, but are to advocate and practice active, positive New Testament Christianity. We must not degenerate into a faction of fanatics always opposing and never advocating. We must never let negative thinking rule our minds and lives to the extent that we do nothing positive for God. We should utilize all the resources at our disposal to promote the cause of Christ to a lost and dying world.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 36, pp. 585-587
September 11, 1980