Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

The claims of the Bible and the claims of Modernism are utterly at odds with one another. “Amiable words” cannot hide the grim clash of these “two religions,” as a leading Modernist said long ago (C.C. Morrison, “Fundamentalism and Modernism: Two Religions,” Christian Century XLI (3 Jan. 1924):5-6). The different premises and implications of the two religions cannot permit a compromise which could stand even the most minimal tests of consistency and logic. In seeking to blend the Bible faith with the Modernist-faith, Montague admitted the difficulty of maintaining two “widely divergent” creeds at once. The difficulty is “to keep this divergence from degenerating into a flat contradiction . . . .” His solution is ethical self-deception: sing the creed which is not believed, say the creed which is not sung (Liberal Theology, p. 159). No one who really believes the faith of Scripture can reduce that faith to a song of myths and symbols, for the sake of a facade of unity. Such compromise is suicide for “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3).

World War I chastened Modernism in a way its opponents had been unable to do. The War laid bare the reality of evil in a world that was supposed to be progressing ever onward and upward. A second blow was delivered by the worldwide Depression, which underscored the continuing reality of human greed, misery, and helplessness. The evolutionary scenario of man’s perfectibility and of inevitable progress broke down under the weight of historical reality. Less there were any lingering doubts, the world was cursed with another World War. Some Modernist made a few alterations in their most exaggerated doctrines, but did not give up hope in social progress nor faith in the power of positive thinking.

Many of the new generation which faced war and economic depression reacted by confessing that man must look beyond himself, beyond the course of nature, and beyond the postulates of science to find God. In fact, they confessed the need for some form of special revelation in order for man to know God and His will. Thus was born Neo-Orthodoxy. But the fatal fallacy of this new, more conservative movement was that it attempted to compromise the old and new faiths. For instance, this movement taught that the Bible “contains” a Divine revelation which may “confront” a given individual at some time, but the Bible is not the will of God revealed with finality and available to all who read. In moving back only part way, Neo-Orthodoxy only re-instituted contradictions and inconsistencies which Modernism had seen in its earlier day and had resolved by becoming more extreme.

Writing in 1946, Carl F. Henry observed that Neo-Orthodoxy’s strength was its recognition that the Biblical view of God and man depended upon special revelation. He warned though, that the movement contained the seeds if impending crisis. “But by its espousal of an evolutionary theory of origins, a higher critical view of the Scriptures, and dialectical view of revelation, it is caught in tensions which do not make possible a genuinely objective divine revelation” (Henry, Remaking the Modern Mind, p. 216). Twenty-four years later, in 197,0, John Warwick Montgomery could look back on the course which religion had taken since the rise of Neo-Orthodoxy. He pointed out that this movement and those which followed it had all failed, leaving the field to “secular theologians” who “repristinated the old liberal humanism that finds God where man’s social action takes place.” Why did this happen after it seemed that a substantial conservative shift had begun?

Simply because the intermediate states of 20th century theology . . . having accepted the critical approach to revelation maintained by the old Modernism, were unable to offer any stable alternatives to humanistic liberalism. Once the reliability of God’s revelation in the historical Christ of Scripture is put in question, as it was in 18th and 19th century thought, secular theology is the only consistent possibility: in rejecting God’s revelation, man puts himself in God’s place; now all that is required is to work out the implications of man’s centrality. Naturally, God will take a back seat or be re-defined in terms of man’s interests; naturally, human social action will become all-important; naturally . . ., Jesus will be transmuted into a humanistic “place to be” and “revelation’ will now be found in sexual satisfaction and the amelioration of the ills of society (Montogomery, The Suicide of Christian Theology, p. 33).

When opposite views of God, Christ, and Scripture meet, compromise is suicide. Truly the field is then left to secular theologians, liberal humanism, and moral anarchy.

We may be told that the furor over Modernism is too old to think about, much less to write about. Modernism is supposed to be dead and gone. Religious historians often confine the term to a rather unified body of thought which flourished in the first two decades of the twentieth century and which grew out of a broader Liberalism in the two previous decades. Since two World Wars and a Depression broke up that unified body of thought, we are supposed to believe the Modernism is dead and buried.

Actually, the foundational premises and much of the Modernist program for the churches are still exerting a profound influence in so-called Western Christendom. Roman Catholicism has been belatedly feeling the effects since W.W. II. The history of most of the major American Protestant churches reads like a history of the ongoing influence of Modernism, both in their Liberal theology and in their Social Gospel programs. The rather large Evangelical or conservatively-oriented community of Protestants, once noted for its fierce opposition to Modernism, has moved in the direction of Modernism during the last decade. This community is fighting internally over such fundamental issues as evolution and whether the Bible is verbally inspired, while accepting with enthusiasm more and more Social Gospel activism. Liberalism, Modernism, and the Social Gospel from their start have infiltrated the Restoration movement; these have been symbols of the Disciples of Christ wing, which restructured itself organizationally in 1968 and openly declared denominational status. Compromise with Modernism means nothing but the advance of Modernism. Compromise is suicide.

“Surely the churches of Christ cannot be bothered with Modernism,” someone may be thinking, “for they are too conservative.” Bill Banowsky asserts that brethren “ignored” or were “oblivious” to the battle over Modernism earlier in the twentieth century (Mirrow of a Movement, p. 37). Such impressions are wholly inaccurate and contribute to an apathetic atmosphere in which compromise occurs. Banowsky’s chapter “Back to the Bible” demonstrates that brethren were award of and concerned over the issues raised by Modernism from the start (ibid., pp. 93-115). The first lesson delivered at the very first Abilene Christian College Lectureship (1918) was George A. Klingman’s “Destructive Criticism” (printed in Abilene Christian College Bible Lectures 1919, pp. 241-252). The next series in 1919 included lessons showing the God must reveal Himself rather than being discovered by man’s natural powers (G.H.P. Showalter, “God Revealed,” ibid., pp. 161-171), the Bible is proven to be a special revelation by its predictive prophecy (G. Dallas Smith, “Who Wrote the Bible?”, ibid., pp. 183-195), and the Bible is verbally inspired (Maurice D. Gano, “Verbal Inspiration of the Scriptures,” ibid., pp. 37-54). Gano said that if he did not have this confidence in Scripture, “I would take my Bible and my pencil and after every duty of the present and every promise of the future I would put a question mark” (p. 49). Brethren knew that Modernism would raise its head within the church unless met head-on. The same is true today.

Various brethren have compromised with Modernism and fallen victim to it through the years. For instance, during 1944-45 W.P. and J.T. Reedy as well as Carl and Grayce Etter served notice through the West Coast Christian that they had changed their convictions and fellowship. The former fled “crystalized . . . conceptions of God, Christ, the Bible, the Plan of Salvation and all the rest” as “a closed, completed pattern” in favor of “unity in diversity.” Likewise, the Etters sought new horizons “with reference to the nature of God, Christ, the Bible, the Church, man’s mission in the world, and many other issues, having both theological and social implications.” They embraced “the historical approach to Bible study” to escape the “embarrassing position” of “continual warfare upon science and the scientific attitude.” The Etters wanted freedom to “cooperate with . . . religious neighbors in movements that are designed to make the world a better place in which to live,” and freedom to explore modern “theories of Biblical inspiration and interpretation” (Brewer, “As Touching Those Who Were Once Enlightened, ” pp. 9-23).

In 1950 on the front page of the Firm Foundation, Glen L. Wallace – who died at 71 on 14 August 1978 – complained of “The Modernism Among Us,” citing R.E. Box’s “Dilemmas for Growing, Thinking Christians” in the Chicago Christian of the Cornell Ave. Church, Chicago, Illinois. Box appealed for a “historical process” by which “each generation” finds “its own way,” for “modification or transmutation” of values, for “a completely new trail,” and for the Modernist ecumenical policy to replace “our policy, forced upon us by Southern sectarianism, of complete separation from our religious neighbors.” Brother Wallace pointed out that two divergent religions were in conflict:

At the root of all our problems is a denial of the authority of Jesus Christ as expressed in the New Testament Scriptures.

There is but one choice before us. We can return to the apostolic order, the way of the New Testament Church, or we can walk the way of Modernism with its program of “The ecumenical church” and “revitalized American Protestantism” (Firm Foundation 67 (29 August 1950):1-2).

Compromise with Modernism is suicide for New Testament Christianity.

The 1940’s and 1950’s saw more and more Modernist leaks in the dam of New Testament authority among brethren. In July of 1950, Foy E. Wallace, Jr. made his oft-quoted observation about the progress of Modernism:

The movement toward modernism in our own ranks the past decade is cause for a note of alarm. Among the preachers of certain schools or groups, of class or caste, the modernistic tendency is more than a trend – it is an organized development. Twenty-five years ago a fine-toothed comb could not curry a modernist out of the church of Christ; but today we can take a hayrake and bale them up. One of the first indications is general looseness in attitude toward conformity, a non-strictness in regard to essentials (“Marks of Modernism,” Torch 1 (July 1950):6).

Throughout the 1950’s, James D. Bales spent a lot of time raking and baling Modernist among brethren through the pages of the Gospel Advocate.

When Leslie Diestelkamp moved in 1954 to the metropolitan Chicago area, he found that most of the churches of Christ had fallen under the influence of Modernism to one degree or another. “In seventeen years, seventeen gospel preachers either lost their faith entirely, or else they abandoned the church for modernistic denominations . . . . Many of them had gone to Chicago for that same purpose – to oppose modernism. Gradually they softened and became infected with it themselves” (Diestelkamp, “Here Am 1, Send Me,” , p. 21). A primary purpose for Diestelkamp, Bryan Vinson, Jr., and others initiating Truth Magazine in October of 1956 was to provide a medium for “Christ-like controversy.” In answering the question, “Is There A Need For `Truth’?” Editor Vinson said, “Modernism is gaining ground every day” (Truth 1 (November 1956):2). Early issues of Truth carry exchanges with modernistic brethren by Diestelkamp and other writers.

Throughout the 1960’s and 1970’s Modernism has been consolidating its gains and moving forward among churches of Christ. What was a trend in the 30’s and 40’s and an “organized development” in the 50’s, established institutional and journalistic organs in the next period. Mission Messenger, a publishing concern of Carl Ketcherside, published a collection of seventeen articles by as many authors entitled Voices of Concern in 1966. Including such titles as “Failures of Fundamentalism,” it preaches typically Modernist themes: the restoration of New Testament Christianity is proven impossible by “modern Biblical scholarship;” the Biblical text is uncertain because of “so many glosses, additions, and editorial changes;” the church must turn from questions of “orthodoxy . . . . to the social concerns of the world;” whatever “authority and inspiration” belong to the Bible, it is “not in terms of the idea of infallibility” in statements of history, science, miracle, or even doctrine (pp. 35-47, 177-187).

1967 marked the birth of Mission Magazine and 1969 of Integrity, both of which have carried repeated attacks on verbal inspiration, the concept of restoring the New Testament pattern of faith and practice, and other fundamentals. Leroy Garrett’s Restoration Review has sounded the notes of compromise and of outright Modernism again and again:

1. The New Testament contains “rival apostolic traditions” (Robert R. Meyers, 1962, p. 72).

2. Evolution should not be made “a test of orthodoxy” (Meyers, 1964, p. 171).

3. Some of Paul’s epistles contain “scurrilous,” “inexcusable,” “outrageous” remarks (Meyers, 1965, p. 36).

4. Ancient philosophers and prophets not found in Scripture “Confucius, Zoroaster, and the Buddha” – were inspired to give “God’s revelation of himself to man” (Garrett, 1968, pp. 29, 148).

5. We should fellowship those who love Jesus but find they cannot believe “the virgin birth” (Garrett, 1968, p. 150).

6. “We are to remember that God has made us brothers” with some people who cannot believe “things like the virgin birth of Christ and the resurrection of the body” (Garrett, “How About Modernists?” 1971-72, pp. 79-80).

7. “Just so I can conceive of sexual intercourse outside.. wedlock as justifiable” as in the case of a “woman forced by impossible financial circumstances into prostitution” (Garrett, “What I Believe About Situation Ethics,” 1971-72, p. 157).

8. “Luke and Acts” have more authority than “Jude or 3 John.” “Neither do I see it necessary to hold to a theory of absolute inerrancy of scripture in order to accept it as authoritative.” The “imperfection,” “error,” “discrepancy,” and “contradiction” in Scripture does not blur the “cogent persuasiveness” of the story of Jesus (Garrett, “The Nature of Biblical Authority,” 1973-74, pp. 332-33).

9. “The Virgin Birth” is “not” part of the gospel (Garrett, 1977, p. 139).

10. “There is no such thing as being absolutely sure,” we “can over be absolutely sure,” and we must “live quite happily with that uncertainty” by trusting God’s grace (Meyers, 1978, p. 94).

11. Whatever position the Disciples of Christ denomination may take on “the homosexual thing” and church merger, we must believe that their action is “a sincere effort to act responsibly” for Christ (Garrett, 1978, pp. 118-19).

No proof better than the above list could be found to show that Modernism is very much alive in this generation.

The atmosphere of compromise gave rise to a new publication from June of 1973 through January of 1977. Called Fellowship, its staff included Garrett and others who sought “a deeper sense of unity and fellowship among Disciples of Christ (Christian Churches), Christian Churches, and Churches of Christ . . .” (statement on inside cover of each issue). A typical article entitled “What Is Truth?” complained that the New Testament is too narrow and advocated a search for truth through intuition, experience, and extra-sensory perception. Since in Christ “Truth is personal, not verbal,” we must reject “this assumption that the Bible is synonymous with the Word, (which) stifles the creativity intended for God’s People” (August 1975, p. 10). Though Fellowship has not appeared recently brethren do not lack journals with which to promote the speculative and destructive theories of Modernist religion.

No, brethren, Modernism is not dead and buried. But, we will be if we ignore it and fail to teach against it. Compromise with this direct challenge to the faith of Scripture is suicide. We must choose between the baseless, empty miracles of Modernism and the certified miracles of the Bible. When Peter confessed, “Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” the Lord said, “Upon this rock I will build my church” (Matt 16:16-18). Peter declared, “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Pet. 1:16). Every miracle of the Bible is true, and God has come in the flesh for our salvation – the greatest miracle of all! We must answer the call of Christ or the call of the world. “And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever” (1 Jn. 2:17).

Truth Magazine XXIV: 29, pp. 470-472
July 24, 1980

By Mike Willis

We continue to notice the classifications of unchurched Americans cited in J. Russell Hales book Who Are The Unchurched? Our methodology is to consider what legitimate objections might be made by those in a certain classification and then to reply with what the Scriptures might have to say to such a person. We continue this examination in this article.

7. The Nomads. These are those Americans who cease to attend church when they move from one community to another. Inasmuch as our society is highly mobile, the number of unchurched Americans who have quit attending worship when they moved is sharply increasing.

I can think of no legitimate reason why a person should quit worshiping God because he moved from one location to another. However, it is a fact that many do. Whereas I have commented on legitimate criticisms leveled against denominations in previous categories, I would like to confine myself to discussing the Lord’s churches in this category for many Christians quit attending when they move from one location to another.

One of the criticisms which I have to make pertains to poor follow-up on those who are moving from one location to another. In my judgement, elders should help those who are moving to new locations to find a place to worship. I do not think that one is asking too much of elders to expect them to talk to moving members to tell them not to attend liberal congregations when they move, give the name of a sound congregation and preacher (if possible) to contact when moving to another city, and contact that congregation to make sure they make contact with each other. A few weeks after the move has been made, elders should contact the members to see if they have located the church in the new city and whether or not they are attending regularly. These considerations for those who are moving do not seem oppressive.

Furthermore, elders should advertise their locations in order to help those Christians who are moving. I have been on the road enough to sympathize with those who must be on the road often and locate a congregation in a strange city. I visited one congregation recently to attend a gospel meeting; the congregation did not have any advertisement of its locations in the phone book; its preacher’s phone number was unlisted. Needless to say, I nearly never found where I needed to be. For the sake of traveling saints, churches would do well to advertise their locations in well known periodicals, the daily newspaper, and the phone book. Churches should obtain and keep on hand several church directories to help those members who are constantly traveling.

The other side of this coin is that moving to a new location is a test of the strength of one’s commitment to the Lord. Some people attend church because mother and daddy attend this church, their friends go there, and other social reasons; when these people move to another location and these social reasons are not present, they sometimes cease to worship God. Such people were never truly converted to the Lord in the first place. Christians who are devoted to the service of God will assemble with the saints. They might have to drive a long distance or establish a new congregation to do so, but they will worship God. Those who do not have this intense commitment to the Lord are not pleasing to Him.

I realize that some of the matters which I have discussed under this category fall under the realm of judgment and expediency. However, we simply must come to grips with the fact that saints are constantly moving and many quit attending worship services after a move. Brethren need to work to prevent this from happening any more than absolutely necessary.

8. The Pilgrims. These are described as being in a transitional state so far as their beliefs are concerned. This is particularly true of college students who are trying to decide what they will believe.

I do not consider this group as forming a legitimate complaint against any particular religion; they are simply trying to decide whether or not they will accept as their personal guidelines what was handed down to them by their parents. Some are further down the road than the college years when they examine life’s values. There is nothing wrong with any given individual doing this.

The gospel, however, has the only legitimate answer for such a person. To a person who is questioning his religious beliefs and commitments to life, the preacher must present the Bible as the all-sufficient guide for life. Holding forth the word of God, the preacher directs these unchurched Americans to follow its teaching wherever it leads them. If an individual will accept the Bible as the only legitimate authority over his life, he will soon become a faithful child of God. If he does not, he will wonder hopelessly, groping for something to give meaning to life (whether it be an Eastern religion or some cult). There are many faithful Christians who began their search for meaning to life in exactly the manner presently described in this category. We encourage them to search the Scriptures daily to see if what is taught is so (Acts 17:11).

9. The Publicans. “The Publicans constitute by far the largest, group of the unchurched. They perceive the Churches to be primarily populated by Pharisees. They call those within the Churches hypocrites, phonies, fakirs and persons living double lives . . . . Either humbly or self-righteously, they say in effect, `If I cannot live up to expectations, I prefer to stay on the outside. There are too many half-hearted on the inside.'”

One does not have to be a genius to see the legitimacy of this complaint. Every church in America has people in it who are not living according to the moral and spiritual standards of God’s word. The world has heard preachers, song leaders and others use the name of the Lord in vain, seen them participate with the world in telling filthy stories, seen them conduct dishonest business deals, and other forms of immorality. They recognize that this is not Christianity and are repulsed by the hypocrisy which they see.

This should not prevent them from attending worship and serving God, however. The fact that there are counterfeit bills does not stop a man from accepting cash. The fact that some people who attend sporting events are hypocrites does not stop them from attending these events. Why should it stop them from attending worship? Frankly, I think that this is a cop-out used by a goodly portion of the world to excuse themselves from doing what they know God commands them to do! As a cop-out, this places the one who uses this right in the midst of the hypocrites whom he criticizes. The truth of the matter is that he does not want to go to worship but rather than plainly state that, he hypocritically justifies and rationalizes his sinful conduct. The person who is honest and sincere will see the good Christians sincerely trying to live according to God’s word; their number being so much greater than the hypocrites, he will recognize that one does not judge the entire group by a few “bad apples.” For this reason, I generally dismiss this objection as a cop-out.

10. The Scandalized. These people are “those unchurched whose rejection of the Church is based on the Church’s disunity. They see a proliferation of groups of `true believers,’ each of which claims exclusive possession of the keys of the kingdom . . . . Until such factionalism is healed, they argue, the Churches cannot expect to claim the allegiance of those who feel they are entitled to unequivocal answers spoken by the Churches in a common voice.”

Practically everyone of us has been exposed to this complaint from the unchurched. Even Jesus recognized it as a legitimate complaint; He said, “. . . either pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (Jn. 17:20-21). Jesus recognized that disunity would cause people to be unbelievers. With over 1200 religious denominations in the United States, we should expect to hear this criticism regularly. Furthermore, we have seen the effect of division in the local church. When churches divide, inevitably some members will quit attending anywhere. Hence, division is producing infidelity.

All that I know to offer people such as this is the prophesy of God that these kinds of things would occur (1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Thess. 2:1-12; Matt. 7:15f) and that they test and prove the faithful (1 Cor. 11:19). The fact that others are not living according to God’s word excuses no one! Furthermore, the method of obtaining religious unity will be on exactly the same basis as salvation is attained. The world will not be saved all at one time; they will be saved one at a time. Unity will be attained in the same manner one at a time as each person decides to walk according to the same mind, make the same judgments, and speak the same thing (1 Cor. 1:10). So long as one person refuses to abide in the revelation of God’s word, total religious unity cannot exist. Hence, every individual can contribute to religious unity by deciding to walk in the light of God’s word and in that alone.

11. The True Unbelievers. These unchurched Americans are those who say that they are atheists, agnostics, humanists, secularists, deists and rationalists. Obviously, these people would find no reason to go to church. However, I am unable to excuse their disbelief without admitting a deficiency in the evidence. I am thoroughly convinced that the evidence to prove the existance of God and the deity of Christ is adequate (Rom. 1:18-22; Jn. 20:30-31). The only defense which I can offer for these unbelievers comes from a criticism of the infidels who are associated with religion. Many pulpits across this land are filled by modernists who have little more faith than these infidels. When the preachers do not believe, how can one expect them to lead others to faith? Proportionately, the number of unbelievers among the unchurched is small.

12. The Uncertain. The last group of unchurched Americans are those who give no reason for their lack of church affiliation. Obviously, I can offer little to these except to admonish them to believe and obey the word of God.

A Cause For Optimism

The picture of the unchurched American is not altogether bleak. Some of the surveys are reporting signs of optimism. For example, consider these facts:

Many of the unchurched – while not drawn to organized religion – nevertheless have positive inclinations toward organized religion and feel that “religion is a good thing”. For example, the overwhelming majority of the unchurched would like to have their children receive religious training.

At least half of the unchurched (52 percent or approximately 20 million adults) say they could see a situation where they could become a fairly active member of a church now” and would be open to an invitation from the church community (The Unchurched American, pp. 15-16).

The general attitudes of the unchurched look better than what I would have guessed. Notice these statistics:

* Nine in 10 (89 percent) say they would welcome more respect for authority in the coming year.

* A similar proportion (91 percent) would welcome more emphasis on traditional family ties;

* Seven in 10 (69 percent) say they would welcome more emphasis on working hard;

* Three out of every four (74 percent) would not like to see more acceptance of marijuana usage; and

* Six in 10 (62 oercent) would be opposed to more acceptance of sexual freedom (Ibid., pp. 5-6).

In addition to these trends, the following surprising statistic was given:

* Seven out of every LO (70 percent) would welcome less emphasis on money (Ibid.).

Though all of the attitudes of the unchurched American are not positive, these demonstrate that the message of the gospel is a message which many Americans are wanting and definitely needing to hear. With 20 million American adults saying that they would be receptive to an invitation to go to church, there is little excuse for us not giving them such an invitation.

We must, therefore, exhaust every legitimate tool in evangelizing the world, starting in our own back yards. Radio, TV, literature, personal evangelism, and any other tool which is effective must be tried to reach these lost souls with the gospel. Believing them to be dead in sin and doomed to everlasting hell, let us take the saving gospel of Jesus Christ to them.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 29, pp. 467-469
July 24, 1980

By Eugene Crawley

Some time ago this statement was made to in e in a conversation with a young man who was attending one of the “Christian Colleges” preparing to preach, and who had already been very active in the “Campaigns for Christ” and “Youth Rallies” which have become so prevalent. His description of these endeavors included such words as “tremendous,” “fabulous,” and “wonderful,” but not once did he use the term “scriptural.” Indeed these and many other things are “new to the brotherhood,” and are being readily accepted and promoted by not a few, especially those associated with the “Christian Colleges.”

It is my judgement that some, like this young man, are accepting these without ever stopping to consider whether or not they are in keeping with God’s will. They get so “carried away” with what they term “tremendous success,” “fabulous results,” and “wonderful response” that they conclude there has never been anything that has accomplished as much. Thus, they lose sight of the need for Scriptural authority. I am persuaded that some have no idea of how to go about determining whether or not a belief or practice is Scriptural. How pathetic for them to become so confused over seeming success; it cannot be true success because it is not based upon a “thus saith the Lord.” Just where has the Lord authorized such arrangements which bind together a number of local churches, and a multitude of workers from them in a combined drive like the “Campaigns for Christ” and “Youth Rallies”?

Certainly I agree that it. is “something new to the brotherhood.” It is also something new to God’s arrangement; but it is not new to the world; denominations have been having such for a number of years. The gospel needed as badly to be preached in the days of the apostles, but where do we have any record of their directing that such be formed to accomplish God’s purpose in proclaiming the gospel? Had such been needed, don’t you know that the apostles, directed by the Holy Spirit, could have, and would have, arranged for it?

God arranged for the local church to be the organization in and through which the gospel was to be preached (1 Tim. 3:15; Acts 14:23; 1 Pet. 5:1-3), and early churches accepted and faithfully discharged this responsibility, and every other work He gave it to do (1 Thess. 1:8; Phil. 1:5; 4:15, 16). Faithful churches are content with God’s arrangement, and continue to do the same today.

Opposition to such unscriptural arrangements does not mean that one is opposed to preaching the gospel, edifying the church, or caring for the needy ones; but rather manifests love for the truth, respect for Scriptural authority, and the desire to see souls saved.

We need to recognize that things like these which are “new to the brotherhood” are indeed too new to be right. A thing must be as old as the New Testament, that message proclaimed by the inspired apostles. May we all take a more discerning look at that which is being done, and resolve to stand firmly for the “faith once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3).

Such endeavors are “tremendous” departures from the New Testament, “wonderful” displays of ignorance of God’s word, and “fabulous” disrespect for Scriptural authority. Brethren, think!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 29, p. 466
July 24, 1980

 

By Steve Willis

It is about time again for the Great Uncover Up. It happens all over the United States, but I am particularly noticing it here in Florida. In fact it has been going on now for a couple of months. I am referring to the time of year when many people, including Christians, decide to go with the fashion of the world and uncover their bodies so that they can get the sun, or get into the swim – or whatever.

I know that this kind of dress is noticeable among men as well as women, but as a man, I notice it among the women. The fashion industries make little change in the men’s summer apparel, but it tries to make its great “advances” in the area of women’s swim wear and lounge wear. We might question the kind of advances that are made by the companies in light of the advances made by men toward women because of their clothes (or lack of them).

I am reminded of Adam and Eve and our minds’ pictures of them wearing their fig leaves. We read that they “sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings” (Gen. 3:7). They recognized their nakedness and their need to cover it up. Yet they were unsuccessful in their coverup, for God “made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them” (3:21). 1 wonder what God would make for some of His people if He were to meet them this summer?

I might remark here concerning the audience that I hope will read this article: I want fathers, husbands, wives, mothers, – men and women of all ages – to read this and cover themselves up or see that those in their family are dressing in the way that God would have His people dress. I say this because of an event that happened to me once. A lady was complaining of another young preacher’s exhortations to the church about covering up. She said, “Why, we are a bunch of old ladies; we don’t wear those kind of clothes. We don’t even look good in them.” It was not twenty minutes before I met her daughter. She came in wearing the miniest of mini-skirts, showing her – you guessed it -behind! That was not all! Ten minutes later, she was coming to lunch in her bikini. I could hear that lady saying, “We don’t need that kind of preaching.” Got the picture? I certainly did!

The admonition to a young preacher is: “Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith, purity, show yourself (notice Paul did not stop here) an example of those who believe” (1 Tim. 4:12). Note that word “purity” and see if you are able to reconcile it with the swim wear of today.

Wives were told that they could win their husbands in some cases by their “chaste” – not chased – “and respectful behavior” (1 Pet. 3:2). Women, beware that there are those whose eyes are “full of adultery” (2 Pet. 2:14); do not add wood to their burning passion. For this reason, the Great Uncover Up may be a matter of spiritual life or death. We might be instrumental in causing the death of others, and reduce our chances of gaining eternal life.

While you are making a sigh of relief by shedding some of those clothes, you may be making someone else merely sigh.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 29, p. 465
July 24, 1980