Truth Magazine

By S. Leonard Tyler

Mr. Malcolm Boyd wrote an article in the April, 1972 issue of McCall’s Magazine under the above title. It was interesting, as well as suggestive. May I use some of his material in search for the correct answer? His question has echoed through the 1960s and 70s. We may expect to hear it repeated in future decades as traditional denominations continue to decay and decline.

Mr. Boyd suggests a growing interest in the question, “Do we still need the church?” He thinks the question is relevant and feels that many are inventing their own answers, and I agree. His approach is sectarian or denominational. Such is self-evident to any, with just a little understanding of the New Testament, who reads his article. He shows no scriptural basis for arguing the need for the church. His concept of the church, seems to me, is purely social. The soul of men and eternal life are only alluded to and the spiritual nature of the church forgotten.

Confusing Social Values With Higher Spiritual Values

Mr. Boyd has some good things to say regarding the value of the church for morals, stability in life, broader concept of man and our relationship one with the other, as well as windows of vision and “affords us punctuation marks for the rituals of our own lives – birth, love, marriage, work, study, leisure, crisis, tragedy, and death.” But in all this he never gets to the point that Jesus came to seek and save lost men. If one fails to recognize the church as a spiritual institution with spiritual values and purposes, he misses the whole reason for its existence.

This should impress us because there is a growing tendency within the Lord’s church to overlook its spiritual values and emphasize its social, political, and moral values. The sociological concept of the church gives way to a “social gospel” and classifies the church as a human organization rather than a divine spiritual institution.

The teaching of Christ affects man’s thinking and touches every phase of human life, since it regulates his relationships within the bounds of what is right. It lifts his thoughts to higher living and nobler designs than any earthly treasure of accomplishment can offer. It not only keeps before him the mysteries of life but gives a firm basis upon faith for their solution.

The church has an inestimable impact upon the sociological relationships of man, but this is effected only as Christ’s teaching seasons each individual’s heart to act within its bounds sociologically, politically, or morally. However, the very purpose of the teaching of Christ is to lead men and women to accept Him by faith as both Lord and Savior. This is sustained by the great commission as well as other texts (John 8:24; Mk. 16:15-16; 1 Tim. 1:15). When men and women hear the gospel message, believe in Jesus Christ and act upon that faith in obedience to His commands, they are saved (Rom. 6:17-18). Thus they make up the church of Christ (Phil. 1:1).

The Church As Ordained By God

The Greek word ekklesia from which “church” comes means “the called out.” To be the church of Christ, members are “Called out” by Christ. This call comes through the gospel (2 Thess. 2:14; 1 Thess. 2:12; Eph. 1:13; 1 Cor. 15:1-3). Therefore, the church of Christ is composed of all those who are redeemed by the precious blood of the Lord and become his possession, His people (Acts 2:47; 20:28). These have obeyed the gospel being baptized into Christ and must abide in His teaching (2 John 9) to continue as His possession, His church. “Do we still need the church?” is but to ask, “Do we still need the saved?” or “Do we still need people who believe in Jesus Christ and obey Him?”, for such is the church.

Christ is the head of His people, His church, with all authority both in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18). His people, the church, must be subjected unto Him (Eph. 5:23-24). He loved the church and died for it “that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:25-27). Christ is the Savior of the body, the church (Eph. 5:23; Col. 1:18). Do we need the church?

The people of God, His church, have a divine arrangement or organization through which to function as His people. Christ is the head, elders are to superintend under His instruction (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1-4), deacons to serve (1 Tim. 3:8-13), and all the saints work together with God (Phil. 1:1; Acts 14:22-23; 1 Tim. 5:1-7; Titus 1:5-13). The inspired Scriptures give the absolute standard by which the church of Christ is maintained or sustained as the true church. This is the church as revealed in the New Testament. “Do we still need the church?” Do we still need that which God ordained in His eternal mind to manifest His manifold wisdom and through which He receives glory throughout all ages, world without end (Eph. 3:10-11, 23)? Keep this in mind as we recite some-of the comments regarding the church.

Confusing The Lord’s Exalted Church With Decadent Human Churches

Mr. Boyd quotes a lady in Cleveland as saying, “I don’t go to any church or religious meetings now. My religion is being with God. I don’t need any help with that.” This lady has no concept of what the New Testament church is – much less, its purpose and need for today.

A Chicago woman, wife of a former Catholic priest, said, “The church as an organized institution is dead for both of us. We don’t care about its renewal or its failures. However, we have decided to join a commune. That’s where Christ is – in the inner city or out in the country, in poverty and service to other people.” These remarks confuse Christianity with Catholicism, which has very little resemblance to the Lord’s church. No one should be amazed as to why such people are down on the church. They know only the highest order of ecclesiastical organization and biggest “religio-politico” institution on earth. The Pope claims personal infallibility when speaking ex cathedra. The Roman Catholic Church holds the same Claim. but her history is one of war, persecution of dissenters, and blunders of every sort. It should come as no surprise when such people become disappointed and discouraged. They come to recognize the uselessness of such a monstrosity claiming to be the simple church of Christ revealed in the Bible.

One should never allow this to drive him away from the New Testament church. Why go to a commune? Why not meet with the redeemed people of the Lord? Why not search the Scriptures and examine the gospel as originally preached? This is what so many people longing for God did in the first century. And when your faith becomes strong enough, obey the Word of the Lord and become a child of God – such made up the church then and such makes the church today. The word is the seed of the kingdom (Luke 8:11). A commune is only a group of people discussing, talking together. The church is a group of saved people studying, worshiping and working together ‘according to God’s instructions.

A Protestant clergymen told Mr. Boyd, “I don’t know what I believe right now about church doctrine. The main thing is that I have to support a wife, a kid in high school, and a girl in college. So I have to stand up on Sunday mornings and preach a sermon that won’t get too many people too mad. I have to go on being the `man of God’ even though I don’t have any clear idea what it means. I can’t stand doing it much longer. My wife and I both want out. But how can I earn a living? This is all I’m trained to do.

Woe Unto Me If I Preach Not The Gospel

This is a terrible blight in which to live. And, think! What an ungodly impact it has upon the hearts of men and women, boys and girls, from a spiritual standpoint. But the problem, it seems to me, in back of it all is the idea of a professional ministry. Schools for the ministry are among us and are manufacturing professional ministers to the destruction of the Lord’s church.

Do you mean to say, “It is wrong for a person who wants to preach to go to college?” No, a thousand times no! But when one goes in search of professional training to make a preacher, it would be better for him to make a lion trainer or politician. This would save the church many problems and open the door for true preachers of the gospel of Christ. The truth of the matter is that God did not establish the college to make preachers. He established the church. One should be a Christian and love the truth enough to want to preach it regardless of college or no college. He should preach to save his own soul as well as saving others.

Paul said, “. . . necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:16). He brought His body under subjection, he said, “lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway” (1 Cor. 9:27). This attitude gives the right disposition toward preaching. Listen, “For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus sake” (2 Cor. 4:5). Paul was not a “professional minister” promoting his own career. One must be firmly convinced within his own heart first and then he is ready to tell the glad tidings of good things to others – yes, preach the glorious gospel of Jesus and His love!

It would not be right to close without giving Mr. Boyd’s last paragraph, “The church is not simply a building on the corner of Second and Elm, although that building may house a bit of it. The church expresses a thunderous shout of joy, a lamentation so loud that it fills valleys, a restless Christ who roams the earth. The church is bigger than any of us or our attempts to make it conform to our own image. Yet it is an intimate community – wherever two or three are gathered together – that links us to judgment, healing and love.”

He forgot one essential in his gathering. Jesus said, “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matt. 18:20). They must gather “in the name of Christ.” This means by His authority or according to His instructions. Therefore, it is not just a commune of people with whom Jesus meets, but rather two or three gathered in His name.

The Church: The Everlasting Kingdom

The church of Christ is needed today just as it was when Jesus established it upon the earth. It has the same origin, doctrine, name, organization, worship, work, and eternal destiny. This is the everlasting kingdom which cannot be moved (Heb. 12:22-29). Time and timely things pass but the everlasting word of God endures forever and such sustains the everlasting kingdom or church of our Lord. It shall not pass away.

The church is the pillar and support of truth. She proclaims the gospel of Christ and serves to please God, for her design is to give God glory throughout all ages (1 Tim. 3:15; Rom. 12:1-3; Heb. 12:1-3; Eph. 3:21). In the final great day, Christ will deliver her to His Father (1 Cor. 15:22-28). If God be for us, who can conquer us?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 28, pp.459, 460-461
July 17, 1980

By Donald P. Ames

A great deal of publicity has been given the Shroud of Turin in the past few years. Some claim the evidence is “overwhelming” that it is the actual burial cloth used on Jesus On. 20:6-7) and that some sort of brilliant flash at His resurrection produced an actual negative of the body of Christ on the cloth. It is claimed that it shows the blood stains, the whip marks, and even the Roman coins of the time of Christ (if you have a good imagination). Catholics have made much of this “evidence,” and feel great pride in their “find” and the money and publicity they are getting from it.

Several have asked me what I thought about it; I suggested they be patient and just wait before they jump to any conclusions. The Roman Catholic Church has a great track record of producing “great finds” with “positive proof,” only to have them later exposed as a fraud. There were just too many unanswered questions about this to convince me that it was all that conclusive. And, the information is not all one-sided. More is now coming to light to show the highly publicized shroud is just another of those fakes.

For those who would like detailed information on this expose, may I urge you to take a trip to your local library and look at the November 1979 issue of Popular Photography, p. 97. Joe Nickell has an article there entitled “The Turin Shroud: Fake? Fact? Photograph?” It is well worth reading!

Mr. Nickell points out the cloth first appeared in the mid-1350’s at a new little church in Lirey, France, and the deCharny family (who owned it) began raking in the funds from pilgrims who came to see it. However, the artist who actually produced it was soon located, and “he confessed to forgery.” The issue was quickly and quietly dropped until 1452 A.D. when the granddaughter of the original owners sold it to the Italian monarchy. Repeated attempts to exhibit it as a genuine relic persisted, and so did the refutation and scandel. In 1532, it was nearly destroyed in a fire, and then faded from view until 1898 when it was first photographed, and the positive picture of a man developed. Several theories (none of which could be supported scientifically) were advanced to “explain” how it was possible for the negative on the cloth to be created and how it was “impossible” for it to be a fake – despite the admission of the original artist who created the forgery in the first place!

Mr. Nickell went on to show why the claims to the cloth being a “perfect negative” were invalid (if a true 3-D representation, the features turn out to be way out of proportion to the relief in the shadowing). He further noted some of the original photographs were actually reproductions of pictures from books and not actual photographs at all. The “blood stains” were tested by a secret commission (1969-76), and their report (now revealed) said there was no blood but “probably was the result of painting.” Of course Catholics point out that the image itself was not painted, but nothing is said about the “blood.”

Finally, using 14th century technology (in harmony with Biblical information), he began in 1978 and reproduced the same results on another piece of cloth. Using a bust of Bing Crosby, he even explains how you can produce a shroud as valid as the Shroud of Turin! His expose was also published in The Humanist (December 1978), and referred to briefly in Science News (December 23, 30, 1978). He has been invited to present his research on a nationwide TV program on the shroud (per Popular Photography).

Catholicism has sought many relics to make money off people who pay first and investigate later. Nearly every one has turned out to be a fake. Be cautious about believing such claims, and you may avoid embarrassment later.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 27, p. 443
July 10, 1980

By Sylvia Wheeler

As we travel the roads and highways of this country, we are impressed with the carelessness and unconcern of society. Huge sums of money are spent each year to clean up the trash and garbage we throw out the windows of our cars as we go on our merry way.

There are a few things we need to think about. We may say, “What harm can one little gum wrapper do?” We have a civil law against littering in this country and when we break this law we are breaking God’s law (Rom. 13:1-7; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13, 14). What example are you setting for your children? It amazes me how Christians can ride along and toss things out with no thought at all as to what they are doing.

This carelessness has carried over into our care of the church building. Today, when more and more congregations are hiring a janitor to clean the building, young mothers are missing out on a lot. It would be very educational for some mothers to have the responsibility of cleaning up after the services. So often it looks as if we have had a ticker-tape parade and banquet combined, with paper torn up all over the seats and floors and food crumbs everywhere. We would be embarrassed if a fellow member dropped by our house for a visit and found trash and food scattered everywhere. Yet, we fail to realize that Christ is with us at our worship services (Matt. 18:20). Where are our priorities?

If every mother would take a moment before leaving the building to pick up after her children, it would make a big difference. Think of the example you would be setting for your children. We all know children are copycats! They would soon learn as they grow up, that they have some responsibilities to clean up after themselves. Mothers, let’s think on these things and care about pleasing God.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 27, p. 442
July 10, 1980

By Ron Halbrook

Since the miracles recorded in Scripture are above and beyond the pattern of natural forces, Modernism finds those miracles irrational. We raise the question whether it is not Modernism itself which is irrational. Modernism embraces self-contradictory notions. How these notions can be true without destroying intelligence, appeal to rational evidence, and all the higher motives and capacities of man, is a miracle indeed! Let us look at some of the many miracles of Modernism.

Literary Miracle. In denying the verbal inspiration of Scripture, Modernism is thrown back on explanations for the existence of the Bible to an approach which appeals to the normal course of human life. Once it was said that the prophecies of Scripture were written after the events predicted had occurred, but extant manuscripts now disprove the theory. “It has been related that Voltaire, the great French infidel, said if he could be convinced that the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah is genuine, he would concede that at least one prediction of the prophets was fulfilled” (McGarvey, Sermons, p. 128). In addition to the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament made about 250 B.C., we now have the Dead Sea Scrolls which are copies of the Old Testament dating before the time of Jesus. Voltaire’s challenge has been met and Modernist doubts about predictive prophecy have been answered. The Modernist is left with passages such as Isaiah 53 which accurately predicted future events and were written before, not after, the events. He must explain how, men predicted these events without a miraculous revelation from God. A naturalistic explanation of such a supernatural feat will itself be a miracle!

The Modernist has a literary miracle when he tries to reconstruct the life and teaching of Jesus from the New Testament so as to eliminate the miraculous. Modernism tears up the New Testament accounts of miracles, throws away the miracles, reshuffles the remaining material, and postulates what the life and teaching of Jesus may have been. But, when are the New Testament reports to be accepted and when rejected? This opens a Pandora’s box. The Modernist can no longer argue that so-called literary criticism is needed to determine what the original records said; textual scholarship has come so close to the original manuscripts as to discount such an approach.

The interval . . . between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established” (Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology, pp. 288-289).

The New Testament documents are primary-source material pointing like a knife at the throat of Modernist speculations about what “might” have “really” happened! Attempts to explain away such miracles as the bodily resurrection of Jesus “invariably demand more faith than the Resurrection itself, for they fly squarely in the face of the primary-source material” (Montgomery, The Suicide of Christian Theology, p. 39).

Moral Miracle. The Modernist has often argued that God is at work in all the experiences of man. This would mean that God is working in man’s experience when he defines his own morals. By the same token, God would be just as much at work when man breaks that moral code or discards it for a new one. In fact, situation morality as espoused by many Modernists argues just that. What is moral changes with the different circumstances and experiences of a man; breaking his own moral code may be the most moral thing he can do in some situations.

The very expression “situation morality” is self-contradictory. Morals are unchanging principles of right and wrong which do not break down under the pressure of “circumstances.” Situation morality is no morality; it is the search of a blind man in a dark cellar for a black cat which is not there, against which we are warned (Col. 2:8 – taken captive through philosophy and vain deceit). The nation of Israel suffered chaos and recurrent apostasy when “every man did that which was right -in his own eyes” (Judg. 21:25). The moral miracle of Modernism is that God is at work revealing His will in a man’s experience when he acts first in one way and then in the opposite way. The first absolute rule of situation morality is that there is no absolute rule of morality.

Another moral miracle for some Modernists is involved ,in their explanation of the Gospel accounts of Jesus. The most extreme Modernists have argued that Jesus was a great and good man but not the Son of God in a unique and supernatural sense. How shall we then deliver Jesus from the charge of lying about His nature (John 3:16 “only begotten Son”; Jn. 8:58 – “before Abraham was, I am”)? The answer is that the Jewish authors made up stories about the miracles, the claims, and even perhaps much of the teaching of Jesus as embellishments to the true story. But, this solution involves a moral miracle. How did first-century Jews of the working class so completely transcend all the prejudice and pettiness of first-century Judaism in order to paint the picture of Jesus Christ? Water does not rise above its source. Nothing in the moral character of the Apostles – who argued over which of them would be greatest and who fled when Jesus was arrested – qualified them to produce the moral character of Jesus Christ!

Ethical Miracle. The ethical miracle of Modernism is that proponents are not required to reveal their true convictions, but in fact may conceal them by proclaiming their doctrine in the language commonly used to express the opposite convictions. Baptist minister W.S. Morgan attended Yale Divinity School and subsequently went into Unitarianism. He advised those going through the same transition but who feared the loss of their pulpit, “Don’t label your heresy . . . . Do as I do. Give them heresy in such a fashion that the very saints will not suspect it. Bad ethics, you say! 1 say, very bad! But this is the only way in which hundreds of orthodox pulpits can be held” (Morgan, American Unitarian Association tract No. 223, quoted in Gordon, The Leaven of the Sadducees, p. 96). Another Liberal acknowledged that this approach to the conflict between traditional and modern creeds had been often used but lacked “honesty and frankness.” In discussing “Two Creeds for Every Church,” William Pepperell Montague said,

One solution of the problem more often put into practice than defended in theory is the “double standard” of truth -one for the person, the other for the congregation; or at least for the more simple of its members. The latter are to be allowed, if not encouraged, to take the creed literally; while the minister takes it with reservations. It is difficult to defend this policy against the charge of bad faith and deception in a matter where, if anywhere, absolute honesty and frankness should be required. Sooner or later the minister will be asked point-blank by one of his flock, who is assailed by doubt, as to the truth of some article of doctrine. He must then either tell an outright lie or else let the cat out of the bag and abandon his double standard of truth (Chapt. IX of Roberts and Van Dusen (eds.), Liberal Theology, p. 157).

Montague advocated “the ideal solution” of adopting two “widely divergent” creeds. “The one creed will be sung, the other will be said,” thus satisfying the whole range of “religious experience,” from the “emotional” to the “cognitive” (Ibid., pp. 159, 162). In other words, we will believe and preach the Modernist faith but will sing and rejoice in the ancient faith. This solution internalizes the bad ethics in the individual: self-deception is practiced for the sake of feeling a false sdnse of continuity between the ancient and modern faiths. The Modernist’s ethical miracle is that of doubletalk “in a matter where, if anywhere, absolute honesty and frankness should be required.”

Intellectual Miracle. The intellectual miracles of Modernism are many. We have already seen that what is moral one minute may be immoral the next, and vice versa, but God is at work in all these experiences. Furthermore, the truth which is not subject to question is that all truth is subject to question. Modernism treats all truth as relative, expanding, ever changing: there is no final truth, yet this very truth is itself final, not relative, and unchanging. In explaining “The Meaning of Liberalism,” William Ernest Hocking asserted that “liberalism is not to be identified with any particular dissent . . . but only with dissent from the view that any version of Christianity is all final” (Liberal Theology, p. 57). The Bible, then, is not a complete, final, and all-sufficient revelation of God’s will to man; nothing about the Gospel of Christ is settled and certain for all times. We are thus asked to believe that the one revelation which is “all final” is that no revelation is “all final.” Montague advocated that the “intellectual creed” – the one we really believe and preach, the Modernist creed – “will be regarded in the first place as probable rather than certain” (Ibid., p. 159). He did not mention that this raises the question whether what he thus advocated is itself “probable rather than certain.” In Modernism, the one truth which is absolute is that no truth is absolute, the one truth which is not relative is that all truth is relative. The miracles of the Bible do not hold a candle to the miracles of Modernism, if the preeminent objection is that we are asked to believe the incredible!

Miracle of Origins. Modernism rejects miracles recorded in Scripture that have to do with the origin of the world, of man, of Jesus Christ, of the church, and of the Bible itself. But, Modernism accepts its own miracles when it comes to the question of origins. The theory of evolution became an all-encompassing answer in answer to all questions of origins for the Modernist; God works through evolution, we are told. How did one form of plant life, say ferns, produce another form such as Redwood trees? And how did plant life evolve into animal life? How did an animal such as a snake or an insect such as a fly produce elephants and eagles? How did the animal kingdom which is amoral produce man with the capacity for moral understanding and choice? How did a male evolve into a female, or how long did the first male have to wait until the animal kingdom could evolve a female? None of the missing links which are the very keys to the theory of evolution have been found, but we are asked to put our faith in the non-miraculous miracle of evolution. The law of evolution has been spoken from Mount Science and woe be to the man who does not tremble at this word.

We have already shown that Modernism cannot account for the origin of the moral character of Jesus Christ; Modernism’s own supposition is that a motly band of Jews who all taken together could not represent one-tenth of the character of Jesus is responsible. The Modernist has no better explanation for the origin or the New Testament church. After the church’s existence is acknowledged, he may point to Paul as the great organizer and evangelist to the Gentiles. But, then, the Modernist must account for Paul’s conversion by rejecting his own account and explaining how he was converted without the miraculous appearance of the resurrected Lord. As for the Bible itself, Modernism is left with the problem of explaining the origin of predictive prophecy, which was discussed earlier. An explanation of such prophecy in the Bible without the miraculous intervention of God would itself be a major miracle.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 27, pp. 440-442
July 10, 1980