Truth Magazine

By Earl Robertson

The apostle John wrote, “Love not the world”, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever” (1 John 2:15-17).

This is not popular language to the world or worldly people in various churches. The command of John is imperative making it a prohibition. The fight God waged through Christ against the world must likewise be seen by every armor- carrying saint today. Some people seem to think the world does not need fighting-just do not love it! To have the love of God (objective) one must oppose the world; having such is the very antithesis to loving the world.

John declares, “The world passeth away, and the lust thereof.” This just means that all who love and gain the world cannot keep it. Neither can one take it with him when he leaves (1 Tim. 6:7). Furthermore, the world can never completely satisfy one who indulges in it. Man lives by every word that comes from God (Matt. 4:4), and this is what satisfies.

John says the world is made up of three things: (1) Lust of the flesh, (2) Lust of the eyes, (3) Pride of life. These three cover all the means through which sin becomes a reality. Giving vent to sensual passions is sin. All who do so do it at the expense of virtue and man-hood. While one lives like an alley cat he has no respect-from himself or others. The lust of the eyes involves the lust for wealth. With this motivation, one often lays aside his sympathy, benevolence, and honesty. In his madness he grabs even for that of others. One has to give away all his convictions in his “pride of life.” This man wants everybody to speak well of him and pat him on the back while he goes about being “every man’s dog who will hunt with him!” One who so loves the world has lost his virtue, his honesty, and his convictions! Of what value is this man to anything that is good? Of what value is he to a church? None at all! Yet some churches will keep such within their fellowship.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 12, p. 202
March 22, 1979

By Jeffrey Kingry

The Gnosticism of the first century, which gave the apostles and teachers so much trouble, was a religion, not a philosophy. It was grounded in Dualism, a view that the state of man was divided; that only spiritual things were good, and anything of matter is essentially evil. Man, they figured, was a spirit, a mind, the personality, reason, and intellect imprisoned within an evil body. That spirit was a seed, an effluence of God, who is altogether good. So then, the aim of life must be to release this heavenly seed which is held within the evil body. And that could only be done by an elaborate and secret knowledge and ritual and initiation which only true gnostics could apply. According to Schaff-Herzog, “In the sense of the Gnostics, gnosis (Greek word for knowledge) is religion; knowledge is redemption: to know, that is to be redeemed, is only possible for the `spiritual man,’ sufficiently elevated by knowledge . . . The surest sign that this gnosis was a matter of religion and not of philosophy was the fact that its advocates made efforts to form associations; although it was not always clear where the school stopped and the church began” (Vol. 4, pp. 498, 499).

William Barclay commented on the gnostic, “Still further, this Gnosticism issued in an attitude towards men . . . the Gnostic aimed . . . at an elaborate, esoteric, and secret knowledge. Clearly such a knowledge was not for every man. Ordinary people were too involved in the everyday work and life of the world ever to have time for the study and training and discipline which were necessary; and, even if they had such time, there were many who were intellectually quite incapable of grasping and understanding the involved and elaborate mysteries of the theosophy. This produced quite an inevitable result: those qualified I and those not” (John and Jude’s Epistles, p. 13).

Not An Ancient Problem Alone

There is a proper place for education and intellectual effort. In the words of an old college professor of mine, “A man ought to get as much education as he can use.” A man aware of the world about him, informed in many areas, and familiar with some of the tools provided by modern education is better equipped to communicate to people in a meaningful way the truth he mines from the Bible. But, there is a sharp line that must be drawn between knowledge as a tool and knowledge as an end.

Several years ago I had dinner with a brilliant young man that was at that time working on his Master’s Degree in Biblical History. He was preaching “part-time,” actually filling a pulpit, and had expressed his desire to preach. I asked him why did he not just go ahead and preach. Surely he had all the schooling he could stomach by now. He had previously expressed great weariness at the grind of school and how it was prohibiting him from doing what he really wanted to do; preach. His reply at the time was quite humorous. He informed me that the church needed some scholars to write commentaries so that the brethren would not have to go to the commentaries of denominationalists or liberal brethren.

His view was and is not unique. More recently I heard of another young man who moved to work with a church that he might finish his Baccalaureate. Following his graduation, he left that church that he might follow after his Master’s and Doctorate. He also had made it his life’s ambition to write the “All-American Commentary” and go down in history as the Lord’s scholar.

A Life’s Dedication?

It is a marvel the degree of self-deception and justification men will arouse to give meaning and purpose to their deeds. Faith demands that we trust God and His methods in accomplishing His will. Commentaries, if they are good, are tools which direct us back to the Word itself. No man can be faulted for wishing to direct men to the Bible, yet in choosing a life’s ambition, God’s man is an evangelist, pastor, or teacher. There does not seem to be much room left in God’s scheme for the deskbound scholar whose only practical contact with others is through intellectualism.

Many young men’s view of themselves and their life’s work is indictative of the age we live in. It is a product of our time. Our age has produced “credential consciousness.” A man’s view is not determined by its worth, but his words are judged upon the scholastic, economic, or political endorsement of their speaker. This is the age of “expert knowledge.” Since the body’s complexity defies total understanding by one man, medical doctors “specialize” and become experts in only one area of medicine or anatomy. The same is true of historians, engineers, chemists, and many other sciences. But, in godly living, the Scriptures declare, “For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope . . . and I myself am persuaded of you my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, and filled witb all knowledge, able also to admonish one another” (Rom. 15:4, 14). Those Christians who are filled with a knowledge of the Word of God and goodness in its practice are “able (capable) to admonish one another.” They are fully equipped, throughly furnished, having all things necessary for life and godliness. Their endorsement is divine, from God, and not from man.

Modern Avarice

The continual adding of educational degree, the modern “quest for knowledge” has become our modern form of avarice. The world has substituted, the act of gathering and collating documentation for wisdom. This new system replaces truth with facts, mind for spirit, and knowledge for practice. Reading about how one church set up an “Intensive College-Level Bible Study Program” the writer frankly said, “Some will not be able to “cut it.” Do not be discouraged because some drop out. There is that element in every church.” How unlike the words of Paul when he instructed the brethren, “Knowledge puffeth up, but love builds up . . . wherefore exhort one another, and build one another up, even as also do ye ” (1 Cor. 8:1; 1 Thess. 5:11). Paul always sought to make all men perfect in Christ.

There is a “knowing” which is a thing only of the head (gnostos). And there is a “knowing” which is based on knowledge (ginosko) which is of the heart. Or, as Paul put it, “that rooted and grounded in love, you may be able to apprehend . . . and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge” (Eph. 2:14-19). A knowledge that goes beyond just knowing?

Wisdom is a divine gift, whose origin is from God and not men. It is first “from above” (Jas. 3:17). It is not-exclusively the possession of the specially trained in intellect, rather, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given unto him” (Jas. 1:5). It is honed and developed in practice rather than a college classroom. “And this I pray, that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and in all judgment; that ye may approve (make a test by practice) things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ” (Phil. 1:9, 10).

The scholar presumes that the quality of life and understanding are a function of intellect, found in special training in language, history, or theology. It has always been a marvel that brethren could place such high trust in men, who with all their scholastic ability, were unable to see the simplest matters of truth as it applied to their lives. “I thank thee Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight” (Matt. 11:25, 26). The Lord knows the reasoning of the wise, that they are foolish, “Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours. Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours. And ye are Christ’s and Christ’s is God’s” (1 Cor. 3:18ff).

Paul of Tarsus, raised at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), who lived by the strictest discipline iof all Judaism (Acts 26:5), and who advanced in intellectual endorsement far beyond any of his own age (Gal. 1:4) load a very low view of the scholars of his day. “But, what things were gain to me, these I counted loss for Christ. Yea, doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus Christ, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ” (Phil. 3:7, 8). “Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this world? Hath God not made foolish the wisdom of this world” (1 Cor. 1:20)? Do not set “dung” as your highest ambition, O man of God. What you sow that shall ye also reap. Indeed, “God taketh the wise in their own craftiness.”

Conclusion

God needs more disciples and fewer scholars. More martyrs and fewer talkers. Our God could have chosen any means he desired to accomplish His will. The most efficient, effective, and appealing method he could devise, with all of his infinite wisdom and power was what man called “weakness.” He sent His Son in the flesh, made a little lower than the angels, born to a carpenter’s family in a stable, raised in a town from which nothing good had ever come, untutored in the scholasticism of his day. He surrounded Himself with unlettered fishermen, publicans, farmers, political radicals, reformed refuse of society, and the poor heard him gladly. His only credentials were divine, in His teaching and works, and they were denied by the world as valid. But, He is my Lord and King, Jesus the Messiah.

I would that His brethren would not be ashamed of Him and His message of good news. We really do not need to see the church and Christianity “redeemed” in the sight of the world from its foolishness, a foolishness God designed it to bear. Deliver us from those who would change the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible men – in changing the simplicity and godly sincerity of our lives in this world into fleshly wisdom to be seen of men.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 12, pp. 200-202
March 22, 1979

By Wallace H. Little

Since this series deals with religion, something needs to be said about salvation and religion, considering the various forms existing in the Philippine Islands.

The claim is made by believers in Catholicism and repeated by those who do not bother to check that out, that “The Philippines is a Christian nation” equating Christianity with Catholicism. It is true that about 83% of the people hold to what they consider some form of Catholicism, but this is not even the same as saying it is a “Catholic nation.” Among the most faithful members of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), their brands of Catholicism have been altered and adjusted over the centuries since it was originally introduced by the Spanish. These include a number of non-Catholic, strictly Philippine elements. Many of the traditional holidays (Holy Days) have been altered either in practice or date to include some pre-existing belief or practice among the people there. In some cases, if the Pope were to visit during that period, he would scarcely be able to recognize what he might have been assured was this particular occasion. The last figures I saw on the subject stated there were as many as twenty different branches of Roman Catholicism there today, each sufficiently distinct as to have evolved as organizational structure totally separate from every other RCC organizational structure there. In some cases, these are only nominally connected with Rome. For example, in one group, sometimes referred to as “Black Catholics,” there is the annual Flagalation on “Good Friday.” It is in imitation of Christ’s scourging, carrying His cross to Golgatha, and finally, his crucifixion. I have watched and photographed several of these. Those who participate are stripped to their waists, and blindfolded. Their hands are tied in front of them, and a whip is in their hands. They will walk for some distance alternately swinging these whips from one side to the other, until their backs look like a piece of raw hamburger. Then they may actually carry (drag, really) crosses for some additional distance. Finally, they are laid on the crosses and tied to them (I know of one instance, where the man was nailed and tied both) and the cross is placed upright and those on them are allowed to hang there for a time.

Paganism and animal sacrifice are not unknown there, even today. Occasionally we will hear of a tribe being discovered having a “stone-age” culture, with their worship pagan. In 1973 when Frank Butler, Jady Copeland and I were there, while taking an obscure trail from the road down to the river to baptize several, we found the remains of animal sacrifice. I have pictures.

The Spanish held sway in that nation for 350 years before the Spanish-American war at the turn of the century ended it. With the Spanish army came the Roman Catholic “priests.” In the decades which followed, Catholicism in variously modified forms became the religion of that nation, working its way into the warp and woof of its society until the impression was left that the Philippine Islands were indeed a “Catholic nation.” As far as a commitment to Catholicism on a religious basis is concerned, this is best measured by the emptiness of their places of worship except on important “holidays.” But it is well to remember that what the RCC may lack as far as religious commitment of its members, it strives to replace with its control of the society there through politics and other means. To a very large degree, it has been, and continues to be successful. It is a mistake to underestimate the real power of Catholicism there. Often the display of power is neither blatant nor even very obvious; but it is there nevertheless. It shows up in the conditioned reaction of the people. For example, a priest does not have to tell the Barrio Captain not to issue a gospel preacher a permit for an open-air meeting. The Captain, automatically “knowing” the RCC is the only real church, will refuse such a permit because his previous conditioning and beliefs will not permit him to allow disruption of what he sees as necessary religious Christian (i.e. Catholic) harmony.

The impact and effect of the Roman Church there is great. It has so many tentacles and tendrils that I am no longer surprised at anything I see which stems directly or indirectly from the RCC. My own guess as to the reason Mr. Marcos, President of that nation, has not moved against the RCC, to expropriate its vast land holdings and return these to the people, is the all-pervading influence of the RCC in that society. Rightfully, the land belongs to the people. It was taken from them unlawfully and unethically during the centuries of Spanish occupation. But the power of the RCC is so great that any attempt to take back that land would probably produce social chaos among the very people such expropriation would be designed to assist.

Prior to the Spanish-American war, the Spanish had effectively prevented any serious penetration by Protestantism in the Philippines. With the end of that war, came the end of Spanish control and the immediate introduction of various Protestant denominations. These groups generally taught a great deal more Bible truth then the RCC ever did, and numbers were attracted. But the total inroads were not great – something along the line of 3% of the population. In this figure, I have included God’s people. Numerically, we are so small, and so impossible to count, that computing a percentage is not practical.

In 1914, one Felix Manalo started his own Church (it surely was not the Lord’s!). It carries the name Iglesia ni Christo (Church of Christ). More than a religion, it is a political organization, a social one and one with tremendous power in the economic area. It is also very tightly-knit. In elections, the members vote as a block for whichever candidate or party its leaders select for them. In recent years, the government has taken action to curb its political and economic abuses. Indeed, the very fact of its tight organization has permitted the government to move against it more effectively than would be possible for it to act against the RCC. The central doctrine of the Iglesia ni Christo (commonly called the “Manaloists”) is that Christ is not divine, and that Felix Manalo was a prophet equal to Jesus. Felix Manalo has long since kept his appointment (Heb. 9:27) and today the organization is run by his son.

Converting folks out of both the RCC and the Manaloists, we face problems and difficulties erected by these organizations. Often, there is no direct opposition ordered or even condoned by the organizations themselves. But such obstruction results from the thinking of its members who occupy important governmental positions, because of their training and beliefs. These make them resist the pure Word of Truth. On some occasions, however, the opposition to teachers of God’s Word is both official and dangerous. I have been with a Filipino preacher when he was told by a Manaloist that, “If more of my people had been here, we would have hurt you.” The preacher believed the man; so did I.

Muslims comprise about 4% of the population, mostly in Mindanao. They have little influence beyond their own people and area.

The real beginning of New Testament Christianity in the modern period was in 1928 when George Benson was on his way to China. Due to a delay in obtaining permission to enter that country, he spent 8 months on the Philippine Island of Mindoro. While there, he converted a number of people. I know some of them who are alive today. They are still believing, living and teaching the truth Benson taught them – and it is a shame their teacher is not. The next year, Harold Cassells went there and converted more. God’s work there grew slowly for several decades. The Second World War greatly hindered its spread. Following hostilities, the church in many places almost had to begin again, so many had ceased to worship or were discouraged from it during the Japanese occupation that most of the congregations were no longer in existence. In 1948, our liberal brethren sent Ralph Brashears to that nation to establish a college. It started on the Island of Luzon, the city of Tayug. Several years later, it moved to Baguio City, where the Philippine Bible College (PBC) continues until today. Growth expanded somewhat, but is tainted by the loss of local autonomy which such centralized institutional activities always bring about. In the early 1960’s, Kenneth Wilkey became the president of the PBC, having ousted Brashears in a move which had all the ear marks of political ambition. By 1962, several U.S. military personnel were openly opposing the institutionalism of the PBC. One man, Dave Turner, a naval pilot at our base at Subic Bay, was the object of a campaign of the American liberals at the PBC to ruin his military career because of his opposition to their unscriptural activities.

But the tide had turned, and liberalism was beginning to lose ground there. On one island, not a single church nor preacher had defected to the liberals. Not that they had been specifically taught against it, but rather, they had been taught truth so well, liberalism had no appeal for them. Men such as Romula B. Agduma on Mindanao were openly opposing the institutional apostasy there. Castorio F. Famit and Victorio R. Tibayan, Sr. were seeing the errors of the PBC, especially as related to congregational activity, and teaching against it. They and others who did so, suffered as a result of their stand for truth.

Beginning in 1970, American preachers have gone to the Philippines to teach. Roy Cogdill and Cecil Willis were the first to do so. Others followed. In 1971, Connie Adams and J.T. Smith were there. in 1972, it was Jim Needham and Dudley Spears. In 1973, Frank Butler, Jady Copeland and I were there. In 1974, it was Larry Hafley and Earl Robertson. In 1975, Connie Adams and Cecil Willis returned. In 1976, Jady Copeland returned with Harold Trimble with him. In 1977, Keith Burnett and I went there. Keith stayed six weeks and I remained three months. During my last month there, I was joined by Paul Casebolt and Jim Puterbaugh. Jim remained a year, teaching the brethren much as he had done in the program at Kirkland, Washington. In 1978, Leo Plyler and Hiram Hutto went, and I made a hasty trip later, in mid-summer, to assist with a critical benevolent need in one area. Others plan to go in the years ahead.

Much good has come from these trips; Two of the greatest effects are the increased contact between the brethren there and those in the U.S., and the consequent support of native preachers there, most of whom are doing good and effective work.

Since 1973, the growth there has been explosive. Rarely has history recorded a growth such as has taken place in the Philippines. The early church, outlined in the book of Acts is one instance. Others I know of are: the U.S., both in the period of 1800-1850, and 1900-1940, and Nigeria, West Africa, 1955-1965. Today in the Philippines there are more than 500 preachers who oppose the institutional error. Of these, about 150 are supported, and many of these preach in at least two churches, sometimes three. There are at least 800 congregations, and possibly the number is a lot higher; there is no way to know for sure.

Several things hinder the work. One is the conduct of some who have made godliness a way of gain (1 Tim. 6:5), and the time it takes for these to be exposed and unmasked. Another is the lack of depth of so many of the preachers (Jim Puterbaugh did a great deal to help in improving this). A third is their lack of experience in methods of teaching. God willing, Jim plans to return to continue his work there for another year in 1980. In the same year, God also being willing for me to do so, I plan to return for three months to teach on methods of teaching. Then in 1982, or 1983, my family and I plan to move there, to work with the brethren for several years. Essentially, I would like to accomplish two things. First, help the churches by spending about half my time working with them in gospel meetings, which are very effective there. Second, I want to research the information necessary to write a book on the modern history since 1928) of God’s people there.

Another hindrance is the multiplicity of dialects. However, the three major dialects account for between 40 and 45 million people. Several of the more accomplished brethren are working on an Interlinear translation of the New Testament from the 1901, using these three basic dialects. The value of such a tool in reaching people there would be difficult to over-estimate. I am in the process of trying to raise the necessary funds to assist these men in their work, and see to the publication of it.

Helpfully simple and direct, this manual presents overhead transparencies and the many other audiovisual materials that can be utilized as teaching tools. Includes many helpful charts, diagrams and pictures.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 12, pp. 198-200
March 22, 1979

By Mike Willis

Two recent articles have crossed my desk which suggest means of unity which involve no, repentance. I would like to discuss both of them very briefly. There is no spirit of animosity toward the authors personally, although I am utterly committed to destroy their damnable doctrines.

“Thus Concludeth The Brotherhood”

Andy Lawrence wrote an article under the above title in Firm Foundation (September 12, 1978). In this, Brother Lawrence tried to distinguish the truth of God’s word from our conclusions drawn from the truth of God’s word. There is no doubt that these are sometimes different; my conclusions drawn from the word of God are sometimes not what the word of God teaches. However, what is incorrect is the idea that one can know what the word of God teaches without drawing conclusions from God’s word.

Brother Lawrence brought up this subject to discuss the subject of unity. He said that our problems which have divided us stem from making our conclusions about the Scriptures equal with what the Scriptures teach. He wrote,

Conclusions drawn from the Bible may enlighten all of us greatly. They may combine many biblical truths into syllogisms which for all practical purposes are infallible. But the intrusion of the human mind into the sanctity of inspired doctrine must eliminate “humanly drawn conclusions” from being equated with “divinely drawn lines” of fellowship. Otherwise scholars, and otherwise men, stand between the common man and God.

If the Lord didn’t state it then, even if my brilliant conclusions are as true as if he did, it is wrong for me to use my personally drawn convictions as a standard of fellowship with another Christian. After all, maturity may later shift position; and who hasn’t had that experience?

He made specific application of this matter to the church support of benevolent homes. If his position will work on this subject, it will work as well on instrumental music in worship, church support of missionary societies, etc. If it works with the Christian Church people, it should work with all denominationals. My conclusions that baptism is “immersion” might, after all, just be a “conclusion drawn from the Scriptures” rather than the “Scriptures” themselves. Furthermore, my conclusions about the “oneness of the church” should not be equated with the divine revelation that appears in God’s word.

Please tell me, which conclusions drawn from the Scriptures can be made essential for salvation and fellowship? Should my conclusions about who Christ is, what He has done for me to save my soul, what conditions are necessary for salvation, etc. (let us not forget that wise men are also divided an-those~issues) be essential conclusions for all men to make? If so, do I not place “scholars and wise men” between the common man and God?

There is no conviction that I hold based on my study of God’s word that does not have to run through my mind before it becomes a part of my convictions. That is just the method we have of arriving at truth. God revealed His word in the Bible. We read the Bible, allowing it to pass through our minds. When we believe the Bible, we reach conclusions based on it. Those conclusions are binding upon men because they are inherent in the word of God. My conclusions are right or wrong, depending upon the method in which I handle the Scriptures. There are no unique conclusions drawn from the Bible; they all come in the same manner. My convictions about Jesus come in exactly the same manner as my convictions about baptism and instrumental music. Furthermore, Brother Lawrence, my conclusions about church support of human institutions, church supported recreation, etc. come in exactly the same way as did the former convictions. If we are to throw out things which we conclude from the Bible as being essential for fellowship, we can fellowship any man, from the atheist to the infidel to the antinomians in the church who have introduced their innovations in the work and worship of the church. Some solutions to our divisions sound good on paper but will not work. Brother Lawrence’s solution to our divisions does not even sound good on paper. It ultimately leads to universalism in our fellowship.

Notice some of the things revealed to us in ways other than direct statements of the Scriptures which cannot be made the basis of fellowship because of Brother Lawrence’s conclusions:

1. Frequency of partaking of the Lord’s Supper.

2. Autonomy of the local church.

3. The day of worship for the New Testament church.

4. That Bible baptism is water baptism.

5. The nature and permanence of the office of the deacon.

6. The right of evangelists to locate with a given church.

7. Proper congregational cooperation.

According to Brother Lawrence’s premises, these matters cannot be made matters of fellowship because they are based on conclusions drawn from the Scriptures rather than from what the Scriptures teach expressly. Are you ready to accept this?

Really, what Brother Lawrence and several others are trying to devise is a means of having fellowship without anyone repenting. Someone was sinful in this recent division of the church over church support of human institutions. Consequently, someone is going to have to repent of his sins. If the liberal element of the church was wrong in introducing these innovations, they must repent of their sin of introducing these innovations and remove them before they can be forgiven and our breaches be healed once again. If the conservatives were wrong in binding over and above what God has bound, they are going to have to repent of this sin and quit doing it in order for the fellowship to be restored. Trying to pretend that both sides can be right is a rather naive approach to our problems.

“Men And Brethren, What Shall We Do?”

This was the title of a recent article in Contending For The Faith (August, 1978) by Ira Y. Rice, Jr. Brother Rice related his thoughts while in his attendance at the debate between Carroll R. Sutton and Ray Hawk. In this, he said,

Both sides, it seemed to me, went out of their way to show a spirit of kindness and courtesy to each other. Although there was never any question as to “which side” I personally was on, yet, as I sat there, I kept repeating to myself over and over what a tragedy it is that both sides which agree on practically everything else should thus be divided over an issue such as this when we desperately need to be united in common cause against the real “liberalism” plaguing those of us who are on either side of this issue.

Notice that Brother Rice does not consider his brand of liberalism to be dangerous. Rather, he thinks that we should ignore his form of liberalism in order to have unity. The truth of the matter is that his brand of liberalism is the daddy of the thing which he calls “real liberalism.” He helped father the Frankenstein monster which Contending For The Faith was designed to destroy! To pull off the leaves of a plant will do no good unless one goes deeper and pulls out the roots as well. Rice is trying to break off the leaves without touching the roots. If his axe were really on the roots, he would be opposed to the form of liberalism which produced the Herald of Truth and church support of human institutions in the first place.

But, let us continue to listen to Brother Rice,

As dead set against the Anti-Cooperation persuasion as I have been since its inception almost a third of a century ago, I never thought I should see the day when I’d actually feel closer to them than toward many with whom I have stood shoulder to shoulder for all these years.

Yet, when I see possibly the majority of our so-called Christian college administrations as well as the editors of some of our supposed-to-be gospel papers headed pell-mell after Liberalism, I think the time has come to call a halt and take a new look.

Anti-Cooperation, in my book, is still wrong. Yet, if those espousing such could quit making it a test of fellowship, Christian forbearance might make it possible for us to work together once again. At least they still honor the Bible as the inspired word of God–which is more than can be said of most now rushing after Liberalism.

Brother Rice is in an unenviable predicament. The liberalism which he helped to father some twenty-five years ago has grown up on him and he does not like what he sees. He wants just a little bit of liberalism! He cannot stand the entire group of liberalism’s beliefs.

Brethren warned through the years of the fight against liberalism – the introduction of the sponsoring church arrangement and church support of human institutions – that this was just allowing the camel to get his nose in the tent. When his nose was in the tent; he would want his head, then his shoulders, etc. until he got his whole body in the tent. That has happened. But Brother Rice does not like it. Neither does W.L. Totty, Guy N. Woods, Garland Elkins, Thomas B. Warren, James D. Bales nor a number of others. They just want a little bit of liberalism.

History will place these men in exactly the same position as some of the more conservative Christian Church preachers who wanted the mechancial instruments of music and the church supported missionary societies but did not want to accept all of the things which the Disciples of Christ have introduced. They will simply spend the rest of their lives trying to kill the Frankenstein monster which they sired twenty-five years ago.

Brother Rice’s form of unity with the “AntiCooperation” brethren is simple. He simply suggests that we quit preaching that the things which they are doing are sinful and we can be united. Brother Rice, practice what you preach! Why not quit preaching that instrumental music is sinful and you can be united with the independent Christian Churches? Furthermore, if you will quit preaching that the charismatic movement is wrong, that Calvinism is wrong, and that the church of Christ is not a denomination, you could probably be received back into the good graces of the Highland Church of Christ in Abilene, Texas as well as the various church supported universities which you have been criticizing. If your form of unity is worth a dime, why not show us how well it works by practicing it yourself? What you are asking of us is not unity but capitulation! Frankly, I am not interested in that.

You brethren who introduced the sponsoring church arrangement were guilty of sin because you destroyed the Bible pattern of congregational government. You brethren who introduced church support of benevolent societies and church support of colleges were guilty of sin because of perverting the mission of the New Testment church. You brethren who involved the church in all forms of church sponsored recreational activities were guilty of sin because you perverted the mission of the New Testament church. You are simply reaping the fruits of your apostasy at this stage of history. We cannot compromise our convictions by ceasing to preach what the bible says on these subjects. We can have unity only if you repent of your sins and return to obedience to the Bible in these specific matters.

There are a whole host of brethren in Brother Rice’s predicament. They are sick of the liberalism which they see in the churches which they are attending. Some of them are working diligently to stop it. They cannot stop it, although they may slow it down for a while. However, they will not go back to the point at which they departed from the word of God and restore the New Testament patterns of congregational cooperation and of the mission of the church. Human pride will not allow them to do that.

We hurt for these brethren. Our hearts bleed for them however, from our perspective, this seems to be their plight and future. Brethren, again we plead with you to repent and be converted to the right ways of the Lord. This is the only way to have peace with God and to heal the breaches in the Lord’s church.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 12, pp. 195-197
March 22, 1979