Truth Magazine

By Steve Wolfgang

Informed students of the history of the Lord’s church know that past examples of modernism(1) among professed members of the Lord’s church are not hard to come by. In the very first chapter of one of the most recent (and one of the best) studies of the Disciples of Christ and Churches of Christ, we are told that “Toward the end of the (nineteenth) century a number of liberal ministers became bold enough to publicly defend evolution, higher criticism, and some of the other controversial scientific theories of the day.”(2) This “new liberal spirit ultimately led a large segment of the church into the mainstream of liberal American Protestantism in the twentieth century” and “also resulted in another major division of the movement.”(3)

Even within the lifetime of most Truth Magazine readers, examples of those who espoused modernism are prevalent. In Louisville, where I now live, the Taylor Boulevard congregation was troubled in the 1940’s over the liberalism of James A. Warren. who “embraced outright modernism.”(4) Warren left and moved to Chicago, publishing a tract, “The Heresy of Legalism”(5)on one of the way-stations to his modernistic destination. He was not alone. According to another historian of recent developments in Churches of Christ, “in the 1950’s, in the space of a few months, fourteen gospel preachers, most of whom are from the Chicago area, forsook the Churches of Christ and aligned themselves with the very liberal Disciples of Christ.(6)

In Indianapolis, the city in which I was born and raised, David Bobo, minister at one of the “Churches of Christ” there, and a graduate of the Disciples of Christ seminary there (Christian Theological Seminary), began to espouse some modernistic viewpoints. Speaking on the Abilene Christian College lectures in 1960, Bobo dealt with “Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible.” Among other things, he pointed to the “number of different writers participating in the writing of Biblical history, each inevitably from his own particular viewpoint and with his own set of emphases …. All these things . . . could not have failed to produce a certain diversity underneath the over-arching unity of the Bible.”(7) In his analysis of the ACC lectures, William S. Banowsky summarized the thrust of Bobo’s lecture. “After stating `that on the surface there are innumerable discrepancies in the Bible,’ Bobo jolted many of his Lectureship predecessors by asserting: `Nothing is really at stake here except the possible theory that every original writer . . . was miraculously guarded against any minute lapse or slip.”(8) Banowsky further informs us that, according to Bobo, ” `the many discrepancies of the Bible’ fall into three categories, verbal, historical, and ideological. He stressed that there are discrepancies in all of nature and that the Bible is not proved invalid because it contains those `normal discrepancies which characterize all other manifestations of God-given life.’ ” Furthermore, “admitting that some of the discrepancies could not be `reconciled or eliminated,”(9) Bobo had these choice words for those who disagreed with his modernistic position:

In their efforts to deny all discrepancies they have resorted to unscholarly, ridiculous, and sometimes dishonest means. Regardless of how good and pious their intentions may have been, their methods have often been below the level of respectability. This likewise has continued down to the present time . . . . Such behavior is sub-Christian . . . .(10)

Bobo’s views were the subject of a thoroughly documented article by William E. Wallace, then preaching in Indianapolis, in this periodical in 1965.(11) According to Wallace, “Professor J. D. Thomas of (Abilene Christian) College critically reviewed Bobo’s positions in a number of articles which appeared in the Gospel Advocate and Firm Foundation. (12) It is interesting to notice Wallace’s comment that, despite such clear statements as quoted above, “Bobo would deny that he is a modernist.”(13) and it is instructive to hear our brother’s general (and we believe quite incisive) observations regarding modernism:

Modernism appears in varying degrees. There are different kinds. Only the extreme modernists are really willing to accept and wear the label. I doubt that any preacher associated with churches of Christ would appreciate being labeled a modernist, yet there are preachers among us who are definitely modernists. Modernism is better described than defined.(14)

Though more veiled and not as open or blunt as his views expressed a dozen years earlier, Bobo’s comments at several of Carl Ketcherside’s unity forums, which this author attended in Indianapolis in the early 1970’s, display his attitude toward the Scriptures. They were published, interestingly enough, in Mission magazine,(15) which a former editor of this journal has called “the Number One espouser of theological liberalism among churches of Christ.”(16) Brother Willis, both in that article and in a previous series, documented evidences of modernism up to that point among Churches of Christ, particularly at Abilene Christian College, R. B. Sweet Publishing Company, on the staff and board of trustees (including faculty at Abilene and Pepperdine Universities), and elsewhere.(17)

Connie Adams, formerly of the Truth Magazine staff and now editor of Searching The Scriptures, has also documented in this paper instances of modernism among Churches of Christ, including an “award-winning” Mission Magazine article written by an elder in an Arkansas church which openly advocates theistic evolution.(18) Even among our brethren who have espoused institutional or social gospel concepts of Christianity, men such as James D. Bales and Ira Y. Rice, Jr., have for a decade chronicled instances of theological liberalism or outright modernism among those claiming to be members of the Lord’s church.(19)

In 1972, Mission, a paper staffed by those at least nominally claiming to be members of the Lord’s church, and whose Board of Trustees is filled with faculty members from colleges supported by funds donated from the congregational treasuries of “Churches of Christ,” published perhaps the most open exposition of outright modernism among Churches of Christ up to that time. In “Every Scripture Breathed of God is Profitable,” Warren Lewis, a graduate of one of “our Christian colleges” and several other institutions of higher learning, stated his premise as “the fact that scripture does not agree with itself,” and concluded with the question, “but what about the clashes and jars? The knots of disagreement in scripture cannot be untied. Nor, indeed, should one try to untie them.”(20) In between he seeks to argue by raising questions such as “how can we say that scripture is breathed of God and profitable when it has jarring, clashing disagreements within it, when it makes things up that most likely did not happen, and when what it teaches about Jesus in one place does not tally with what it teaches about Jesus in another place?”(21) Several years later, the September, 1974 issue of Mission contained a survey (quite informative) of the controversy over such matters by Don Haymes, and a rejoinder to his critics by Warren Lewis. Lewis offered a few more instances of what, by his own definition, compose “clashes and jars,” and reiterated his basic contention that “each of the gospels paints a picture of Jesus which is so different from the other three that the story-level-at the verbal, literal, word-for-word level of the accounts-we are unable in many cases to say what Jesus in fact did or taught. Clashes and jars of this kind are to be found on every page of the gospels. And the doctrines about Jesus from gospel to gospel based on these clashing stories do also equally jar among themselves.”(22)

This article was not designed to be (and because of space limitations cannot be) a refutation of various claims made by these intellectual wonders. Its sole design has been, at the request of the editor, to document instances of modernism among some claiming to be members of the. Lord’s church. In the face of accumulated evidence supporting that thesis which crosses my desk quite frequently, I am constrained to say that one who would deny such a proposition has either played Rip van Winkle for the last thirty years, or else simply has no conception of what modernism is. That some among Churches of Christ are following the familiar path trod by their counterparts of a century ago in the. Disciples of Christ is too plain to be debatable. What the next few years bring, as those imbibing one degree or another of these views gain control of the institutional manifestations of “Churches of Christ,” will be interesting but awful, in every legitimate sense of that word, to behold.

Truth Magazine XXII: 45, pp. 726-727
November 16, 1978

1. For a definition of modernism see my article on “Modernism among Evangelicals” elsewhere in this series.

2. David Edwin Harrell, Jr., The Social Sources of Division in the Disciples of Christ, 18651900: A Social History of the Disciples of Christ, Volume 11 (Atlanta: Publishing Systems, Incorporated, 1973), p. 15.

3. Ibid. See also pp. 9, 434, n. 167.

4. James P. Needham, “The Taylor Boulevard Trouble,” Truth Magazine, VIII: 2 (November, 1963), p. 39; see also Connie W. Adams, “Old Songs, New Singers,” Truth Magazine, XVII:13 (February 1, 1973), p. 202.

5. A copy of this pamphlet is in the Pamphlet File at the Disciples of Christ Historical Society in Nashville; Xerox in author’s possession. James D. Bales replied to Warren in a tract of his own, “The Heresy of Legalism?” also in the author’s possession.

6. Cecil Willis, “The Taproot of Digression: ‘No-Patternism,’ ” Truth Magazine tract, p. 15. This excellent tract was originally a series of articles appearing in Truth Magazine in 1972.

7. Cited in William S. Banowsky, The Mirror of a Movement Churches of Christ as Seen in the Abilene Christian College Lectureship (Dallas: Christian Publishing Company, 1965), pp. 110-111.

8. Ibid., p. 111.

9. Ibid., p. 139.

10. Ibid.

11. William E. Wallace, “Modernism in Indianapolis,” Truth Magazine, IX:12 (September, 1965), p. 271.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid.

15. David H. Bobo, “Looking For New Light in the Scriptures,” Mission, V:5 (November, 1971), p. 133; and “Worship and Unity,” Mission, V: 8 (February, 1972), p. 230. While not printed, a speech Bobo delivered before the 1974 Unity Forum in Nashville contained an obviously loose concept of authority and what most members of the churches of Christ would likely consider rather modernistic statements. The speech was attended by several on the Truth Magazine staff.

16. See Cecil Willis, “Theological Liberalism: Is There Any?” Truth Magazine, XVII: 19 (March 15, 1973), p. 293.

17. See Cecil Willis, “Theological Liberalism at Abilene Christian College,” appearing in the August, 1972 issues of Truth Magazine, 4-part serial.

18. Adams, “Old Song . . . .

19. See Bales’ Modernism: Trojan Horse in the Church (Searcy, Arkansas, 1971) and Rice’s Axe on the Root series followed by his monthly periodical, Contending For the Faith.

20. Mission, V:7, January, 1972, pp. 195, 200.

21. Ibid., 198-199.

22. Warren Lewis, “Let’s Look at the Text-Again!” Mission, VIII:3 (September, 1974), p. 86. Mission has also recently published “The Infallibility of the Bible and Higher Criticism” by one of the more modernistic of the participants in the “Battle for the Bible” controversy, Harry R. Boer (see references in my article on “Modernism and Evangelicals” in this series).

By Carol R. Lumpkin

First of all, allow me to explain what I have in mind when I say a “liberal church.” I have reference to a church which practices that which the New Testament does not authorize, such things as using the church building (paid for with the Lord’s money) for secular education, fellowship halls, recreational activities, baby showers, wedding showers, voting precincts, scout troop meetings, etc.; sending church funds to some sponsoring church, or serving as a sponsoring church; sending funds to some benevolent institution, or to some college. There, of course, are other things being done by some “liberal churches”; but these will let the readers know the type church I have in mind.

I cannot worship with a liberal church because:

1. I would in a sense be lending encouragement by my presence (2 Jn. 9-11).

2. I would be condoning those who do not believe and respect the all sufficiency of the word of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3).

3. I would appear to support what that church is doing (Matt. 5:16).

4. I would be denied the opportunity to teach the truth (Jude 3; John 8:32).

5. I would be violating my duty to withdraw from those who cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine of Christ (Rom. 16:17).

6. I would support heresies (1 Cor. 11:18-19). I must speak out against such activities (Titus 3:10).

7. I would fail to obey the command to withdraw from those who walk not according to the apostles doctrine (2 Thess. 3:6).

8. I would fellowship those who no longer have fellowship with God, nor with Christ (2 John 9).

Some brethren who claim to be “conservative,” favoring only what the New Testament authorizes, seem to think (by their actions), that they can worship occasionally with a “liberal church.” If this can be done while on vacation, visiting, or on a business trip, then I raise the following question. Why can’t a person worship every time with a “liberal church”? If the “liberal church” is practicing sinful things, then is it not wrong? It would be like saying, since I do not intend to commit adultery all the time, then it would be alright to do so once in awhile.

John wrote, “If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth” (1 Jno. 1:6). Churches which do not follow the New Testament pattern in all things are in darkness. The person who commits adultery once in awhile is in darkness. Neither of the above have fellowship with God, even though they may think they do (2 John 9). When sin (darkness) is engaged in by a church, or by an individual, repentance is in order before God will remove the sin. John admonished the sinful churches of Asia to repent (cf. Rev. 2:5).

Churches, in the first century A.D., did not engage in the things which “liberal churches” are doing today. Since the New Testament churches were established under the influence of inspired men and were, therefore acceptable with God, how can churches of Christ today believe that God will accept their innovations?

Jesus has all authority (Matt. 28:18). Elders are to oversee the local church; but they do not have legislative power. Their authority is the New Testament; and there is no way to improve it. We must all “contend for the faith, once delivered” (Jude 3). Jesus prayed that we all be one (Jn. 17:20-21). Preachers may assume authority, elders may usurp authority; members may demand things like their denominational neighbors; but it all spells tie same; a rejection of the authority of Jesus Christ. When false doctrine is practiced and unscriptural works engaged in, people are deceived and souls are lost. In view of all this, we all must die and face the judgment (Heb. 9:27). We each will be judged by the words of Jesus Christ (Jn. 12:48). Those who reject, add to, or take away from God’s word will be lost (Rev. 22:18-19). Those who obey God will be saved (Matt. 7:21; Rev. 22:14). It is better to obey than to perish.

Truth Magazine XXII: 44, p. 717
November 9, 1978

By David King

A series of public discussions was recently conducted in Wichita, Kansas between William Sexton, evangelist for the Westside Church of Christ, and Robert Loudermilk, evangelist for the Clark and Water Church of Christ. The propositions basically dealt with the cup and class issues which have divided our brethren. However, the propositions-and practically every other aspect of this debate-were an unusual departure from similar discussions of the past.

Background

This discussion arose out of an earlier debate on the “cup” issue that these brethren had in September of 1975. That was the first debating experience for both men and the usual cup proposition was used. Over the next couple of years, Bill and Bob continued to study together privately. As a result of their debate and the studies that followed, the propositions for a second discussion were drawn up. There were six propositions in all: two on the container, two on the bread and two on the class arrangement. Instead of cramming the whole discussion into one week, it was spread out over a three-month period: the container issue on January 13-14, 1978; the bread issue on February 17-18, 1978; and the class issue on March 24-25, 1978. A final session of summary speeches and questions-and-answers was held on April 2, 1978. Jerry Cutter and Lonnie York moderated for brother Loudermilk. This writer and Keith Schoonover moderated for brother Sexton.

First Discussion

The container issue centered on the following propositions: “The Scriptures teach that in the communion `the cup’ (drinking vessel) is emblematic of the new testament (new covenant) and the fruit of the vine `the cup’ is emblematic of the blood of Christ. ” (Laudermilk affirm, Sexton deny) “The Scriptures teach that in communion `the cup’ of Luke 22:20 and First Corinthians 11:25-26 refers to the fruit of the vine which is emblematic of the blood of Christ by which the new testament was sealed. ” (Sexton affirm, Loudermilk deny.) As far as I know, this is the first time that any one-container brother has ever affirmed in debate the doctrine that is the foundation of the one-container error: viz, that the container is a third element in the Lord’s supper, representing the new covenant of Christ. This peculiar belief has surfaced in practically every debate on the container issue, but this is the first time it has been openly defined and defended.

Loudermilk based his defense on the language of Luke 22:20 and First Corinthians 11 25:26 (“This cup is the new testament in my blood”). Sexton argued that the Old Testament concept of a covenant always involved a blood sacrifice; hence, “the blood of the new testament” in Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24-which clearly refers to the fruit of the vine. He also outlined the whole context of irst Corinthians 11:25-26, in which Paul obviously recognizes only two significant elements in the Supper: that which we “eat and drink” (v 26, 27, 28, 29). Loudermilk evidently realized the force of this latter argument, because he never responded to it.

It is the conviction of this writer that this doctrine of the third element in the Lord’s Supper is the Achilles heel of the one-container brethren, and we should exploit it more than we do. Loudermilk himself stated that “spiritual significance is the heart of the issue,” and if it can be shown that the container is given no spiritual significance in the Scriptures, then their plea for one container becomes empty. Faithful brethren would do well to press this issue when studying with these brethren.

Second Discussion

The February session dealt with another issue that receives scant attention: the number of loaves (pieces) of bread that can be used in the Supper. The propositions were as follows: “The scriptures teach that when a congregation of God’s people partake of the Lord’s supper, the `bread’ MUST be in one piece or loaf.” (Loudermilk affirm, Sexton deny); “The Scriptures teach that when a congregation of God’s people partake of the Lord’s Supper, the `bread’ MA Y be in more than one piece or loaf” (Sexton affirm, Loudermilk deny).

Loudermilk quoted from scholars and questionable translations in an effort to prove that the word for “bread” in the Lord’s Supper (Greek arton) ought to be translated “loaf.” He also appealed to First Corinthians 10:17 (“we are all partakers of that one bread”) as proof of his proposition.

Sexton defended his proposition on four grounds: (1) Thayer, Robinson, Bullinger, Berry, etc., give the primary definition of arton as simply “bread”; (2) the four “recognized” translations (KJV, ASV, NASV, RSV) uniformly translate arton as “bread” all 12 times it is applied to the Lord’s Supper; no other translation could be found that uniformly translated arton as “loaf” all 12 times; (3) in several other passages where ARTON is used (notably John 6:31, Matthew 6:11 and John 6:23) it clearly refers to more than one piece; a (4) the context of First Corinthians 10:17 forces us to understand the “one bread” as all the Lord’s supper bread partaken of by all Christians, the “one body” of Christ. The passage says nothing about how many pieces of bread are to be used in a local assembly.

Laudermilk also used a “four undivided bodies” argument, based on the Passover Lamb and the unbroken body of Jesus on the cross. Sexton replied that the New Testament carries the symbol of Christ’s body only this far-“This (bread) is my body”-and we dare not carry it any farther.

Third Discussion .

The proposition for the March discussion were as follows: “The Scriptures teach that a congregation of God’s people may use the Bible class arrangement, among other arrangements (as is sometimes practiced by the Westside Church of Christ), in carrying out the command of God to teach His word. ” (Sexton affirm, Loudermilk deny); “The Scriptures teach that a congregation of God’s people may use a woman to teach a Bible class of small children or young women (as is sometimes practiced by the Westside Church of Christ) in carrying out His command to teach His word. ” (Sexton affirm, Loudermilk deny).

Most debates on classes and women teachers use a single proposition that , includes both classes and women teachers-actually two propositions in one. That has always seemed illogical to me, and especially so when I see no-class brethren run a circle between the class arrangement and women teachers. These propositions were specifically designed to avoid that kind of dodgingone proposition devoted strictly to the class arrangement, and another to women teachers.

Sexton defended the class arrangement as an expedient to carry out the command to teach the word. He showed from the scriptures that a congregation can teach the word (1) in the assembly (specifically commanded) and (2) out of the assembly (generally authorized). Classes fall under the second category, along with radio-TV programs, bulletins, home studies, men’s training programs, etc.-methods of teaching the word that do not violate or conflict with the command to assemble. Loudermilk attacked the classes on two grounds: (1) they violate the command to assemble; and (2) it is impossible to classify people into classes.

Sexton defended women teachers by showing from the scriptures that they can teach (Titus 2:3-4,; Acts 21:9, etc.) and that the church can use their talents (Romans 16:); Ephesians 4:11-12); hence, using women teachers in some classes is authorized. In response to Loudermilk’s charge that such violated First Corinthians 14:34-35 and First Timothy 2:11-12, Sexton reminded him of the context in each passage: The woman is not to teach “over the man” (1 Timothy 2:12), and she is to remain silent when “the whole church be come together into one place” (1 Corinthians 14:23, 34)-neither of which is violated by our women teachers.

Conclusion

This series of discussions did not feature “big name” debaters, so it has not attracted much attention. But it plowed new ground, so to speak, in exploring areas of difference that have not been previously explored in public debate. These two brethren plan to continue private studies in the coming months, in an effort to come to a common mind and restore unity. We believe, at this point anyway, that Bob Loudermilk is an honest young man who will face up to inconsistencies in his position. If youthful pride and ambition do not blind him, future study will either lead him to the truth or force him into dishonesty. We pray for the former.

Truth Magazine XXII: 44, pp. 715-716
November 9, 1978

By Ron Halbrook

“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world” (Jas. 1:27). This passage tells “himself” or “oneself” (AV) the personal responsibility which he has to help the needy. During the battle over church-sponsored institutions, this passage has been used to justify churches building, maintaining, and sending donations to institutions which care for the needy. Detailed arguments have been made on the passage, pro and con, but sometimes a man’s experience in life gives him insight into what a passage teaches-and why.

In 1926, brother Carson Isenberg’s father died, leaving a wife and six children. Individual Christians in the Mud Lick (Tompkinsville), Kentucky area aided this family in their needs for about three years. They brought corn, sacks of flour, and other staples of life from time to time, visiting the fatherless and a widow in their desperation. Finally, someone proposed that the children be put in Potter’s Orphan Home at Bowling Green, Kentucky and just let a nearby church send about $10.00 per month in order to visit the fatherless and widows! So, about 1929-30 brother Isenberg stayed at Potters for six months; he was ten years old. The children were split up according to age. Carson remembers that when the officials were too busy to give leis three-year-old brother personal attention, they kept him out of trouble by penning his gown under a bed post.

After several boys had run away and been returned, the officials called everyone together and offered to send anyone home who was thinking about running away. Carson knew that his physical needs were being met but also knew that institutional care was no substitute for mother and home. Seeing an opportunity to return to his loved ones, he claimed that he was considering running away. He then lived with his grandparents, while his other brothers and sisters stayed at Potters.

Carson Isenberg obeyed the gospel in 1952 and about ten years later began to face the institutional controversy. Although he had never thought these problems out before, the expression, “Let not the church be charged,” kept coming to his mind. But something else made an even deeper impression on his conscience. “I looked at what the Christians started out doing around Mud Lick and at what they ended up doing. They took their individual duty and shifted it to Potters Orphan Home, with the idea of letting the church send periodic donations of money. The individuals who started out visiting the fatherless and widows as James 1:27 teaches ended up not visiting the fatherless and widows. ” Brother Isenberg saw that institutionalism was destroying the personal dedication and service of Christians. In view of his own experience, such a movement could have no attraction to him. “Once we were in the Orphan Home, not a one of the people who had been helping us ever came to see us.” Fortunately, the church in question repudiated institutionalism some years later.

We have been told over and over for the last 25 years that James 1:27 tells us the responsibility and that we may choose any way, method, means, or expediency to discharge it. The work and function of the human institution is “how” the church fulfills its duty, we are told. No, actually, the human institution is selecting its own “how” and the church is sending donations to finance the institution, while individual Christians are relieved of the work which they must do to be pure and undefiled. These church-supported human institutions are not the “How” of James 1:27. They are rather the “how” in how to not visit the fatherless and widows.

When brethren lose the spirit of zeal, sacrifice, and unselfishness, they lose interest in pure and undefiled religion. They pass to the church that work which belongs not to the church but to themselves. Rather than do that work, the church then passes the buck to some human organization. This is how to not practice pure and undefiled religion. This is how to look into the perfect law of liberty and how to not continue therein. How to visit the needy is not the problem. The problem is that some brethren have learned how to not visit!

Truth Magazine XXII: 44, pp. 714-715
November 9, 1978