Truth Magazine

By Jimmy Tuten

Our visit to Crossroads in Gainesville, Florida in January was a pleasant experience. All around us was spirituality, friendliness and activity. Her elders were anxious to communicate and Chuck Lucas was the dynamic person we expected to find. I frankly confess that after months of study regarding the so-called “Crossroads Philosophy” and charges of the cultic movement emerging from this collectivity of God’s people, Betty and I did feel strange in this environment. We were not accustomed to such extraordinary demonstrations of liveliness. Even though we did have to restrain ourselves from unwarranted conclusions based on first impressions, we did feel as if we were entering into a physician’s clinic as we entered the reception room of the church building. Giving the receptionist our names for an appointment fulfillment, sitting with others waiting for their appointments, seeing consultations going on through opened doors and young, lively secretaries scurrying about was something new! We had never visited a congregation of God’s people under these conditions before. But what if this form of orderliness so impressed us? Appearance is sometimes deceiving. To my mind immediately came the question: “cult or commitment?” I am convinced that the truth about Crossroads lies within these two alternatives. Charges of “mind control” on the part of mass media, “pressure tactics,” “persecution,” etc. as expressions of fear by our brethren, and the fact that here is something innovative (i.e., because it is new to us, it cannot be Scriptural) tends to distort rather than enlighten. There is a lot of unnecessary smoke in this controversy among our liberal brethren. Certainly Crossroads has reacted to some of the false charges hurled against her (she has been misrepresented on several occasions). My research for more than a year and personal contact with these brethren have not revealed a “martyr’s complex,” nor a “thriving on criticism” and an exaggeration of persecution against them to gain sympathy. I had been told this and I had read it over and over in various writings, but what I found was the very opposite. Crossroads members want you to visit them and see firsthand what they are doing. They are not a despondent people. Brother Lucas is not afraid of your inquiries and the elders will assure you that they will discuss their work with you. Is this not in keeping with the inspired principle, “prove all things and hold fast to what is good”? Should we not be ready to give to all men a reason for the hope within us (1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:15)? What about judging a matter before we hear it (Prov. 18:13)? Many criticisms and objections to her are valid. Some are unwarranted and would not have been made by right thinking people if they had checked their source of information. At the time I visited Crossroads, not a single “torch-bearing” vocal criticizer among the institutional brethren had bothered to see for himself what is happening. Fairness demands that we give Crossroads a hearing before we condemn them. I am not suggesting the “go to hell to find out what it is like” principle. I am saying that it is a sin to misrepresent brethren. Should we not practice love toward our own? Crossroads is willing to make her own defense, and I defend her right to be heard.

You View It From Where You Stand

How you view Crossroads is a matter of where you stand. One must shell off the husks of innuendos and alarmist like tactics in order to get to the kernel of valid objections. For the sake of clarification, a break-down of views held by various groups are presented:

(1) Crossroads View: Crossroads views what she is doing as the development of an “Evangelistic Church” (20th Century Christian, February 1977). Other matters, such as benevolence and edification are not viewed as unimportant. A realization of her mission to the lost, compelled by a sense of love and concern, and a desire for a complete involvement is the true “Crossroads philosphy.” They are totally committed to this concept. They believe it can be done and they are putting their belief into action (Campus Journal, Fall 1975). Brother Lucas told me in January that 90% of their people are involved in a direct, positive way in their “program of work.” This is what brother Baxter calls a “total commitment movement.” While we cannot concur with her methodology in general and while we do not like some of her terminology (soul talks, prayer partner, etc.), we cannot question her motives nor deny that her goals are noble. I agree with brother Virgil Poe (January 23, 1979 letter) that “all is not well with the Crossroads effort either in doctrine or in methodology.” That “we have observed the consequences of the soul talk, prayer partner, quiet time, Holy Spirit Power commitment regimentation of the Campus Advance program at close range and cannot recommend it. Although the plan has much to offer on the surface, the roots of the tree are terribly diseased.”

(2) “Conservative “Liberal View: The Gospel Advocate, Contending For the Faith, etc. people do not like the fruit of their preaching and practices over the past few years. While the real issue is clouded by petty charges and the prejudicial “we believe the Lucas movement is cultic” philosophy, the truth is that these brethren do not like the methods and terms used to describe the work. They are plucking fruit when they should cut the tree. Some have said that liberals are resentfully envious. I leave this for others to decide. Crossroads, with its thousand members, baptize three hundred a year while a Tennessee church with four times that membership, baptizes a hundred. A typical expression of contempt, mildly stated, is that of Virgil Poe of Houston, Texas. He says, “It has its own peculiar doctrines, its words and definitions of those words, and it has its influential leader in whom can be found (by them) absolutely no fault of any kind . . . .” There are definite doctrinal issues involved, liberal churches are splitting and others are deeply troubled. Brother James Adams has well stated, “Chuck Lucas and Crossroads really have the pot boiling” (Gospel Guardian, January 1980). I would like to add that the Crossroads Philosophy is a fly in the ointment! G. James Robinson expresses it like this: “Actually, however, the Crossroads phenomenon can be viewed as a remarkably successful result of an `official’ position shared by mainstream ( Gospel Advocate style, jt) churches of Christ” (Mission Magazine, June 1979). Like a grand finale leaving you hanging in mid-air, brother Robinson concludes, “Chuck Lucas has been able to do what no other Church of Christ preacher has done, despite valiant efforts from Nashville to Little Rock to Dallas and Abilene. He has finally given birth to the seed planted many years ago” (Ibid, p. 13). yes, Chuck has indeed turned up the volume on what Goodpasture, Woods and others have been saying all along. It is their Mecca, and they do not like it! They cannot, however, disassociate themselves from it.

(3) Ultra-Liberalism: Viewing “book, chapter and verse” please as divisive and a “contending for the faith once delivered” as a backward look, it is obvious that these brethren would view Crossroads as neo-legalism “from the stance of the Gospel Advocate and its following” (Mission, June 1979). Simply stated, they feel that brother Lucas has simply nailed down tighter the narrow, rigid, self-righteousness of the old paths advocates. (I do not believe that a plea for “old paths” is any more rigid than God made it, any more narrow than the Lord intended it and no more self-righteous than the apostle Paul who knew in whom he believed.) The following quote sums up their view: “The result is so repulsive, so horrifying, and so absurd that even the most legalistic mainstreamer is shocked and frightened by the accusations of cultism. In other words, we now see very clearly where we’ll be when we get where we’re going – and we don’t like it one little bit” (Ibid, p. 13). They view the Crossroads Philosophy as the very epitome of exclusiveness, over-aggressiveness and conformity.

(4) Denominationalism’s View: Headlines of various papers seeking news-worthy print have played to the hilt the cultic implications of the Crossroads Philosophy. “Cult like church moving into the area” (Outlook), “Ex-Crossroader Assists People In Leaving Religious Groups” (Sun), explosive words like “rapes the human mind” (Ex-Crossroader, University of Florida co-ed), “brainwashing” (Richard Bowaman, Episcopal minister), etc., are shocking and horrifying. I concluded early in my investigations that even if there were no doctrinal errors at stake, the adverse criticism warrants a cessation of activities that are purely expedients and/or aberrations. The reputations of those churches of the Lord who contend for the old paths have been seriously hurt, generally speaking, by the controversy. This is sad. 1 Peter 2:20 certainly has relevancy here. I doubt if the charge of cultism would ever had been hurled at Crossroads if it had not been for Jim Jones and Jonestown. Brethren, there are indeed doctrinal issues at stake, but to charge people with cultism simply because they do some things that Jones did, though admittedly not to the same degree, is serious. Are we cultic because we stress mind control as taught in Philippians 4:8, or separation from family in keeping with Matthew 10:37, or assurance of salvation in Christ as taught in 1 John 2:3? I am suggesting that Crossroads is charged with the same things we are doing. A “cult” is whatever you want it to be. Can the experts help us through the maze of shaded meanings? Crossroads certainly has cult-like tendencies, but I, for one, am not ready to call her a cult.

(5) Conservative View: How are we to view the Crossroads Philosophy? “Another fruit of liberalism?” Certainly, but only if we understand what the “Crossroads Philosophy” really is, not what some say it is. What I am saying is that their purpose, i.e., conversion of the lost and a commitment to Christ, is commendable. Some of their methods of achieving that end are highly suspect and objectionable. Some practices are unscriptural. But please do not make the mistake of throwing the baby out with the dish water. My efforts in times past in the area of “personal evangelism” have met with good success. From time to time, I have run into those who cried “organization!” This was suppose to mean that efforts for systematic arrangement for motivational purposes within a congregation constituted an organization usurping the local church. These efforts are in fact a functional arrangement within the local church under the oversight of the elders. They are no more unscriptural than a Bible class. Here is my point: some no doubt will now point to Crossroads and say, “I told you so!” Even if they were parallel (some things similar, yes), the abuse at Gainesville, Florida would not argue for its unscripturalness. We have been known as a bunch of “do-nothing, negative-minded people” long enough. Many of our brethren are coming out of this and are offering something positive in evangelism. But if we are not careful we will suffer a setback because of improper conclusions regarding personal work. I commend the editor who restrains himself by not jumping onto a bandwagon of popular dissent. I am concerned that restrainment might lead to compromise (whatever the motive), but more so the withholding of judgment an indication of weakness. I do not speak for conservative brethren. I do feel that some brethren are exercising the true spirit of Christianity by seeking facts first, founding convictions on these facts and then speaking out. This is not the only issue that has been placed on the back burner for reflection after research has been completed.

James said, “be slow to speak” (Jas. 1:19).

Next Installment: Crossroads Philosophy: An Attempt At Clarification.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 31, pp. 497, 508-509
August 7, 1980

By Jimmy Tuten

In spite of mass communication and travel, our modern world is filled with too many people who are leading lonely lives. True, our towns and cities are getting more and more crowded, and these lonely ones are always moving among the crowds. But you can be desperately lonely in a crowd. What most of us need, in order to feel that we are living a full life; is to feel a definite relation between ourselves and those with whom we rub shoulders. This is especially true for those of us who are brethren in Christ. We are hearing much talk and seeing evidence of too much suspiciousness among us. Suspicious of what? What is it all about? Can anyone really answer these questions?

Over the past couple of months I have logged over 4500 miles, visiting with brethren in their homes and worshiping with them in assemblies of the saints. From the Great Lakes of the North to the Gulf Coast, and from the Midwest to the East Coast, it is the same. Too many of our brethren are expressing their concern over the fact that closeness does not exist as in days gone by. I know that affluence is evident, our new homes with their labor-saving devices, new cars, the latest styles in clothing, all give off at first sight the appearance of a fuller, richer life, certainly richer than that of our grandparents. There is more leisure, more entertainment, more movies, bigger and better T.V., but unfortunately these cannot restore the lost sense of being. I fear that materialism is taking its toll among us and that the real reason we feel that we really do not belong, as our grandparents did, is because we are conforming instead of being transformed (Rom. 12:1-3). We not only are competing with the world, but with our own brethren! For what? In spite of all that we have we are finding less satisfaction. We know that we are missing something. We hope this something can be regained. It can.

Fortunately, the printed page is still with us. Sensible brethren are still readers! The printed word brings to them a participation in the problems, the joys and triumphs of our brethren, wherever they are, in the North, the South, the Mid-West, England or Africa. One reason for the loss of which we speak is that some have stopped reading. Those who are reading have gained. They are becoming more and more informed. They know that the hottest thing among the liberals right now is the “Crossroads Philosophy,” when they see or hear the word “Ebla,” they know we are not talking about some hurricane, they know because they are reading Journals published by brethren. The task of keeping us informed belongs to “our” journals. Among such periodicals is my old friend, Truth Magazine. We who write for it do not ask that you believe our writings, only that you give them consideration by comparing them with Bible teaching and facts! The readers of Truth Magazine can never be desperately lonely.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 30, p. 491
July 31, 1980

By Dan Walters

Brother Leroy Garrett wrote an article in the November 1979 issue of his paper, Restoration Review, entitled “Priests Instead of Prophets.” He says that he has “susbstantial evidence” that many leaders in the church “basically agree” with the unity-in-diversity position held by Garrett, Ketcherside, Kilpatrick, Scott, and others. These leaders include editors of leading journals, administrators and professors in “Christian” colleges, elders, deacons, Sunday School teachers, and ministers of some of “the largest and most influential churches.” The unity-in-diversity position includes the following points: (1) that the church of Christ is not the only true church,, 2) that there are faithful Christians among the denunciations, (3) that the New Testament church has not or cannot be restored, (4) that instrumental music in the assemblies is not sinful, (5) that fellowship should be extended to all baptized believers who are not morally degenerate and to many of those in the denominations, (6) that salvation by grace and faith demands that God accept those believers in Christ who do not follow the New Testament pattern of doctrine.

I have known for many years that Garrett is correct about the convictions of these leaders he speaks of. He gives them a mild rebuke for remaining “in the closet” instead of openly affirming their beliefs. It is true that the unity-in-diversity men, in spite of their false doctrine, are worthy of more respect than the hypocrites who agree with them but who are afraid to come out into the open for fear of losing their positions. Garrett claims that he can name scores of these brethren “from Tennessee to Texas to California,” who have revealed their positions privately, but never publicly.

There was an old radio show about a man named Fibber McGee and his wife Molly. Fibber McGee’s closet was so full of junk that every time someone opened it a mountain of assorted items poured out into the room. It is evident that the “mainline” church of Christ today is a colossal “Fibber McGee’s closet” just waiting for someone to open it. When they do, so many cowardly “fibbers” will pour out that it will be a stupendous shock to those brethren who have isolated themselves from reality for so long.

However, this is the way apostasy has always developed. If false teachers immediately declared their objectives, they would be marked and avoided. But if they work gradually, they can be assimiliated into the brotherhood and can attain positions of authority. In this way they can corrupt large portions of the church. Garrett says that these diggressives could come out of the closet now because brethren have “ripened for the change . . .” Unfortunately, he is again correct. The kind of teaching done in “Christian” colleges and in many churches during the last few years has softened the brethren and has prepared them for a radical change. The defenders of orthodoxy among the more liberal churches had better start asking questions and find out who is hiding in Fibber McGee’s closet!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 30, p. 490
July 31, 1980

By Paul K. Williams

“A fool always loses his temper, But a wise man holds it back” (Proverbs 29:11).

From the baby screaming in its crib to the old man in hospital impatiently waiting for the bedpan, all of us have trouble controlling our tempers. The only one who has no trouble with his temper is six feet underground. But the wise man says, “A fool always loses his temper.” That means I am that much closer to being a fool every time I lose my temper! It makes me think.

A fool is one who does not have good judgement, who does not profit from experience or discipline. The one who says, “There is no God,” is a fool because he is denying the evidence surrounding him. The one who always loses his temper is a fool because repeated experience has taught him nothing.

I can think of five reasons why losing my temper makes me a fool. They are as follows:

1. Many times it causes me to do things of which afterwards I am ashamed. My temper overcomes my good judgement and I act the fool.

2. Losing my temper makes me act from the emotion of anger without thinking. James warns, “the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God” (James 1:20). I simply want to strike out and hurt the object of my anger. Unrighteousness is the result.

3. Losing my temper demonstrates that I lack self-control, and I lose the respect of those who know me. A man without self-control cannot be trusted with responsibility because he may ruin everything in a burst of anger. That is the reason an elder must not be quick-tempered (Titus 1:7).

4. Losing my temper causes me to hurt those I love the most. When I become angry it makes no difference if the person is my wife or my child – I strike out with words or blows. How foolish to hurt these loved ones!

5. When I lose my temper I usually succeed in causing the other person to lose his, and we wind up two fools instead of one!

Yes, the man or the woman who is known for his temper is a fool, especially if that person has no more sense than to brag about it. (Did you ever hear someone say, “I’ve got red hair!” or “I’m Irish!”?)

“But a wise man holds it back.” How can I become wise?

First, the wise man has come to realize the dangers of hasty anger. “The beginning of strife is like letting out water, So abandon the quarrel before it breaks out” (Prov. 17:14). As water breaking through an earthen dam wall becomes stronger and more uncontrollable, so quarrels quickly grow from a few hot words to full-blown feuds. The wise man knows this and tries to stop the quarrel before it begins.

Second, the wise man has convinced himself that he can hold his temper back. It is our lack of faith which says, “I can’t help it. I was just born that way.” God says, “Be angry and yet do not sin” (Eph. 4:26). Faith says, “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me” (Phil. 4:13). God does not command the impossible. I am truly a fool of little faith when I convince myself I cannot control my temper. The wise man believes God and looks for the way to overcome.

Third, in looking for ways to control his temper the wise man has found two. He has found the easiest way is to be so prepared that at the beginning of the temptation he reacts with resistance. When Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness, Jesus was immediately ready with the words of His Father. So when the wise man sees a situation where he will be tempted to become uncontrolled he takes preventive action. James says, “Resist the devil and he will flee from you” (James 4:7). So the wise man prepares himself to resist. He practices the “gentle answer” which “turns away wrath” (Prov. 15:1) and finds that it not only cools down the other person but calms the speaker as well.

He trains himself also not to think too highly of himself, I find that when I lose my temper, it is often because of some slight or insult to me. Afterward I am ashamed of myself, for who am I to think I have to be treated with respect? My Saviour was insulted and reviled. Am I better than He? So the wise man does not wear a chip on his shoulder and takes slights without resentment. He has removed from within himself the greatest single cause for losing his temper.

But the wise man knows that sometimes anger gets ho. of him before he is aware, that vicious thoughts have riseF, unbidden to his heart and sharp words are ready to be spoken. He knows, though, that he can still put on the brakes. He can ask God to forgive those thoughts. He can “restrain” his words. “Count to ten.” “Bite your tongue.” Those old sayings have good foundations.

“When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable, But he who restrains his lips is wise” (Prov. 10:9).

“He who restrains his words has knowledge, And he who has a cool spirit is a man of understanding” (Prov. 17:27).

“The heart of the righteous ponders how to answer, But the mouth of the wicked pours out evil things” (Prov. 15:28).

So let us restrain and ponder so that our spirits may be cool.

Fourth, the wise man probably has asked others to help him overcome his temper. Heb. 10:24 tells us to “stimulate one another to love and good deeds.” How helpful it is when my wife says, “Whoops, we are losing control. Let’s pray and read the Bible and then discuss this thing.” Then we both are able to become wise people with cool spirits.

I like the story about the sweet old lady. When a young girl asked her the secret of her serenity and of her gracious words she replied, “Honey, it’s not hard. I just taste my words before I say them.” She had learned the secret of holding back her temper and had become wise.

Let’s never forget,

“A fool always loses his temper, But a wise man holds it back.”

Truth Magazine XXIV: 30, pp. 488-489
July 31, 1980