Truth Magazine

By Dennis C. Abernathy

That we face an alcohol problem in this country, no one can deny. The government reports that it is the number one drug problem. We also know that the government will not come up with the solution to the problem (really it is a part of the problem). Our government promotes and condemns alcohol at the same time. It glories in the tax money received from the sale of liquor and, at the same time, warns against its harm. Many of the leading officials (those in positions of making weighty decisions) are habitual drinkers, and some are alcoholics. There is little wonder that our governmental problems are piling up!

You wonder how our country, which is supposed to be a Christian nation, could have problems of this nature in epidemic form. Are people being taught the dangers of drinking? Are they being taught that it is a sinful thing? Not much. In fact, many of the religious leaders themselves drink and many of the religious bodies are involved in the liquor industry – and you guessed why – to get the almighty dollar! In Isaiah 24:2 we read, “And the people will be like the priest . . . .” My friend it is still so today. Many people drink today because they have been taught by word of mouth and by example that it is all right to drink.

The following comes from Gallup’s poll on churches and alcohol: “Gallup also found that ministers, priests and rabbis are not immune from alcohol problems themselves. The proportion of clergy who said liquor at one point or another was a cause of trouble in their immediate families was not far below the proportion of the public as a whole. The proportion of drinkers among clergy, according to Gallup, is slightly lower than for the population as a whole. While 7 in 10 of the general population admit to the use of alcohol on some occasion, only 1 in 2 of the clergy surveyed reported any use of alcoholic beverages.” So, my friend, there you have it! Now you know why many preachers and religious doctors will not preach against the sin of drinking alcoholic beverages.

But do not believe for a moment that the church of Christ is immune to this sin. There are untold Christians who social drink (many get drunk) and nothing is said, tot much preaching is done on the subject, and very little, if any, discipline is administered! Young people, who wear the name of Christ, go out on week-ends, drink beer and get high, then are up front waiting on the Lord’s table on Sunday mornings.

Brethren, we had better wake up. We had better teach the truth on the sinfulness of alcohol. Social drinkers or outright drunkards have no place in the church. They need to be admonished to repent of this sin, and if they do not, then the church needs to take action according to 1 Corinthians 5. Take your Bible and read Gal. 5:19-21 as well as 1 Peter 4:3 (especially those who try to justify social drinking). Think on these things.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 30, p. 482
July 31, 1980

By Brent Hunter

The brothers of Joseph were in a dilemma. They had sold their innocent brother into slavery, and now that the cruel deed was done, they had in some way cleverly to disguise their evil deed. Fearing their father’s wrath should he discover what they had done to his beloved son, they felt it necessary to distort the truth. They would feign concern over their brother’s welfare, and deceive their father into believing a lie. The inspired details of their plan can be found in the book of Genesis (chapter thirty seven).

In short, Joseph’s coat was taken and dipped in the blood of a he-goat so it would appear that he had been killed. The brothers then proceeded to ask Jacob (supposedly in all innocence), “This we have found; know not whether it is thy son’s coat or not (Gen. 37:32).” Jacob fell for their deception and concluded that “an evil beast hath devoured him; Joseph is without doubt (emphasis mine bh) torn in pieces.” How unfortunate, Jacob made the sometimes fatal mistake of making a decision before all the evidence was in. He accepted the story as a definite truth on the basis of flimsy evidence. Perhaps the reason why he accepted it so readily was because he was blinded by the love he had for his sons and did not want to question their sincerity. Whatever the reason, he accepted it as truth and emotionally reacted. Notice Gen. 37:34. “And Jacob rent his garments, and put sackcloth upon his loins, and mourned for his son many days.” So great was his grief that all his sons and daughters could not comfort him for “he refused to be comforted and he said, For I will go down to Sheol to my son mourning, and his father wept for him” (Gen. 37:35).

For years and years Jacob held remorse in his heart over his son and was apparently emotionally upset, not because Joseph was really dead, but because he thought he was dead. .Jacob had been deceived! He believed a lie and therefore reacted emotionally as if he had actually seen Joseph torn asunder with his own eyes. So established was this belief that when years later his sons tried to tell him that he was in fact alive and well in Egypt, “His heart fainted for he believed them not” (Gen. 45:26). How interesting – he heard a lie, believed it, and reacted emotionally and dramatically to it. Now Jacob hears the truth, but he refuses to believe it, and consequently, there is no emotional reaction! It was not until “he saw the wagons that Jos;;ph had brought to carry him” that “the spirit of Jacob their Father revived” (Gen. 45:27). Finally, Joseph gave up his previous false belief, accepted the truth, and reacted appropriately.

Paul said that “these things were written for our admonition” (1 Cor. 10:11) and “for our learning” (Rom. 15:4). What is the lesson? Our emotional reaction to a message has nothing to do with whether that message was true or false! How many people in the religious world when error is pointed out to them reason, “But it can’t be wrong (or false) because I felt so good when I asked the Lord into my heart, or when I began to speak in tongues, or when I sang in the choir, or played the piano,” or whatever. In doing personal work over the years I have heard them all. This example from the Old Testament demonstrates that emotions, no matter how sincere or pronounced, are not the standard by which one can determine the truth. Just as Jacob was sincere but deceived because he did not fully investigate before he came to a decision, such is the case with many people today. And, like the brothers of Joseph, denominational teachers appear to innocent listeners to be sincere bearers of truth, but in reality cleverly distort truth and sell their followers into the “slavery of sin.” False teachers today often feign concern for their listeners welfare, convincing them that they will please their Heavenly Father by following the doctrines of men. Sadly, they will displease God by following error and therefore suffer their Father’s wrath as a result. For, “Whosoever goeth onward and abideth no: in the teaching of Christ hath not God” (2 Jn. 9) nor His beloved Son.

Satan is “the Deceiver of the whole world” (Rev. 12:7) and “a liar from the beginning” (Jn. 8:44). And small wonder, what a better way to keep people from the Word than to isolate certain passages, twist them, (as Satan did in the second temptation of Jesus in Matt. 4:6), and in so doing convince the deceived that because they felt so good when they believed, or began to practice error, they must have been right to begin with! I believe that if one obeys, or is obeying the truth, he ought to feel good about it, but only after he is assured that he truly has obeyed God by fervently and objectively studying the scriptures remembering that “the sum of Thy word is truth” (Psa. 119:160).

Every child of God would do well to realize that where feelings are exalted ignorance will prevail! Jesus said, “What is truth?” (Mt. 18:38). The answer is given in the gospel of John, `Sanctify thyself in truth thy word is truth” (Jn. 17:17). The Bible teaches that the word is the standard by which we will be judged (Jn. 12:48). To claim our feelings or anything else as the standard is heresy.

The story of Jacob and Joseph demonstrates well the folly of emotionalism. Beware. He that standeth on his emotions – take heed lest he fall!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 29, p. 475
July 24, 1980

 

By Daniel H. King

The folly and sin of idolatry is often a subject dealt with in the Scriptures, Old Testament and New. When God placed before Israel the spiritual Constitution of their new nation, abundantly careful was He to warn the people that. was to be peculiarly His own of the danger connected with this awful crime against His Godhead and the far-reaching implications of it. Said the Lord: “I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” And to assure that they made the connection between that statement and the pagan practice of worshiping the works of their own hands, Jehovah was completely specific and utterly clear on what He intended by what He said: “Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” (Ex. 20:2-4).

Whatever the image was or whoever made it (even Aaron) counted little, for it was by its very existence a detraction from the honor due the only one who was really worthy to be worshiped and revered, the unseen and unseeable One. No image or idol could contain Him or even adequately represent Him. The only things which could be called “holy” were those which He Himself pronounced so, and then they were that only in the sense that they were set apart by Him to be used in His service. They did not partake of His Person, nor did they represent His Person, but were simply other than common since they were specially to be used by those who worshiped Him in their acts of contrition and homage on His behalf. Holy lamp stands and altars, tables of shewbread, tabernacles and temples, all were merely the ornaments and utensils of worship and divine service; they did not partake of the being or represent the person of divinity. Moreover, it does not take much of a Bible student to know how exceedingly different this view was from those of the polytheistic and idolatrous neighbors that encircled Israel. They could not appreciate or even plumb the shallows of the idea of a God who had no image and was not limited to a certain place or city. This God was a curiosity, different from all the rest. Too, He and His worship was the only thing that made Israel a unique people. To relinquish this unique feature of His worship was tantamount to giving up what made them a people different from all the rest.

Likewise, there exist both warnings and prohibitions against this kind of affront to the sovereign Lord of heaven in the New Testament. It is listed among the works of the flesh, the enemies of the soul, in Gal. 5:20. None guilty of it can enter the kingdom of heaven. For this reason every sincere Christian will flee from this sin as one runs from a burning and doomed building. (1 Cor. 10:14).

The direct consequence of such teaching was that in the centuries that followed the establishment of the church, the temples and shrines where idols and images were housed were forsaken and the treasuries depleted. Imperial persecution resulted in an attempt to win back the masses, but to no avail. In the end the church won out and idolatry was struck down. But only temporarily.

The Serpent Moses Made

An instance from the pages of the Word of God which poignantly illustrates the way this sort of thing may arise is that of the serpent that Moses made in Num. 21:6-9. In one of the great acts of deliverance of the delinquent Israelites, God instructed that a serpent of brass be fashioned, the which if the ones among the people who had been bitten by vipers should look upon it, they would live. God never meant that any special significance should attach to this simple piece of artwork. Neither was it to be regarded as “holy” or suitable for human reverence or worship because Moses had made it or because it became old with the inevitable passage of time, or even on account of its connection with God and His salvation of Israel. Yet this is what happened in spite of all the warnings issued and threats made. In fact, were it not for young king Hezekiah’s zeal for the Lord men might well still be reverencing and worshiping that lifeless and powerless piece of metal! 2 Kings 18:4 explains that the people had been burning incense to it and had given it the special title “Nehushtan.” Their action was in plain violation of the revealed will of God, and it was left to Hezekiah to break in pieces the artifact and, thus, remove all future potential transgression from the realm of possibility. Of course, we know that Israel found other means by which to transgress. It seems that idolatry was perpetually her greatest temptation and, on several occasions in her history, the stumbling block on account of which she came to ruin.

“Ephraim is joined to idols,” preached the prophet Hosea, “of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cast off” (4:17; 8:4). “And they forsook the house of Jehovah, the God of their fathers, and served the Asherim and the idols: and wrath came upon Judah and Jerusalem for this their guiltiness. Yet he sent prophets to them, to bring them again unto Jehovah: and they testified against them: but they would not give ear” (2 Chron. 24:18).

Catholic “Relics”

In the early days of the church, none would have thought about making and honoring an image of our Lord. As the years passed, however, and, even as early as the third century A.D., icons began to appear in the church. Eusebius of Caesarea (died around 340), who was the father of church history, in several places in his history of the church manifested his dislike for them. To him they were a “heathen custom,” and he wrote many arguments to persuade Constantine’s sister, Constantia not to keep a statue of Jesus. To heathen temples were filled with beautiful images and the multitude of half-converted heathens entering the church brought in their practice of idolatry, by merely changing the forms of the idols and giving them new names.

Along with image-worship grew up another practice, one which has much in common with the Israelite homage offered to Nehushtan, the brazen serpent. For fifteen hundred years, Catholics distributed pieces of wood, purported to be relics of the cross. Butler’s Lives of the Saints reports that the cross was found and, “Saint Paulinus relates that, though chips were almost daily cut off from it and given to devout persons, yet the sacred wood suffered thereby no diminution. It is affirmed by St. Cyril of Jerusalem, twenty-five years after the discovery, that pieces of the cross were spread all over the earth; he compares this wonder to the miraculous feeding of five thousand” (One volume ed., p. 168). Thorns supposedly taken from the crown of thorns worn by Christ, and a host of other “relics” from Christ, the apostles, and Mary have been shown to be mere frauds perpetrated upon a naive Catholic populace. Yet, the reverencing of “relics” continues in one particular:

The Shroud of Turin

Over the centuries, dozens of shrouds have been put forward as the genuine burial shroud of Christ. The shroud which now has its home in Turin, Italy, came to public attention in the 14th century, a period notorious for relicmongering. It was early denounced as a fraud, but when the photographer Secondo Pia in 1898 produced the first negatives of the cloth it gained many proponents for its genuineness. For when Pia examined his glass-plate negatives, he was looking not at the usually unrealistic, confusing photographic negative, but at a clear positive image. Moreover, Yves Deluge, an internationally nwed zoologist and agnostic, after carefully studying the photographs of Pia, went before the French Academy of Sciences and presented details of experiments he had made. In conclusion he pronounced, “The man of the shroud was Christ.”

Another fact came to make its authenticity more believable: experiments with cadavers had shown that nails driven through the palms of a man’s hand would not support the weight of his body. Rather, they would have to be driven through the wrist or forearm. The mark of the nail on the shroud is not in the palm, as the painters of the Middle Ages depict it, but appears in the wrist area. Someone attempting to perpetrate a hoax would likely not have known that the Greek word for hand is cheir and can include the wrist and forearm as well. Too, archaeologists had uncovered the remains of a man named Jehohanan who had been crucified. The nail mark was clearly defined and appeared in the area of the wrist, not the palm.

Scientists have further pointed out that the cloth contains pollen grains which hail from the area of Palestine and textile indications seem to suggest a provenance in the Holy Land and fit the linens which were commonly used in ancient Palestine for graveclothes. The cotton is of a Middle East variety and the weave a herringbone twill. The thread is hand spun, a little-used technique after about A. D. 1200.

A team of scientists in October of 1978 worked around the clock for five days on the cloth, using every conceivable method that present technology has to offer. The results of their studies have been released in several scholarly publications and popular articles have also appeared drawing public attention. The major reason so much attention has been given the piece of cloth lately is the fact that the tests did not disprove the authenticity of the shroud as most expected they would. In fact, several uncanny observations were made: (1) The image was almost certainly not painted on the cloth; how it got there cannot now surely be determined, but no pigment from paint is discernable; (2) The “blood” marks on the cloth under X-ray and ultraviolet radiation respond, very much as blood does; the correct percentage of iron is contained in them for it to be blood; tiny crystals could be hemoglobin that were found on the spots.

Dating techniques have still not answered the question of how old the material of the shroud is. This testing will be made shortly according to reports. But it should be added that nothing has demonstrated yet that this shroud is even the burial cloth of a man from the first century A.D., let alone that it was that of the man Christ Jesus. Remember that multiple thousands of Jewish men were crucified by the Romans during that period, and even were it proven that it was a shroud from someone who was crucified in the fiat century, it would not prove necessarily that it was Jesus’.

And were it shown to be that of Jesus, which is most unlikely, what would it mean? Perhaps it would offer us a nice piece of evidence for the crucifixion in just the fashion described in the Gospels; and if the method by which the image was transferred to the cloth proved to be a flash of light or surge of heat or power (as some already theorize), then it may say something about His resurrection. But all of this is really so much theory and speculation, dependent upon a whole host of dubious or at least highly questionable thinking. It is certainly safer to withhold our judgment until all of the facts are in.

Guard Yourselves From Idols

What terrifies me about this matter is, whether real or not, three million people filed past this simple piece of cloth at its last public exposition. Even if it were real, like the serpent that Moses made, it does not deserve human devotion or reverence. Yet it is literally enthroned in the cathedral at Turin and idolized by millions. Indisputably it has been the cause of a new wave of idolatry in the form of relic-idolatry. We would all do well to be very cautious, even very critical of the proceedings in coming days having to do with this newest center of public excitement. As the apostle John wrote: “My little children, guard yourselves from idols” (1 Jn. 5:21).

Truth Magazine XXIV: 29, pp. 473-474
July 24, 1980

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