Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Elsewhere in this issue of the paper, you will find a commentary regarding the life and death of Luther Blackmon. A few weeks earlier, a similar report concerning the life of Challen Dewey Plum (October 20, 1977) appeared. Not too many weeks before, we also reported the death of Frank Smith and another soldier of the Lord. Within the last few years, we have witnessed the passing of a number of dearly loved servants of the Lord. Many of them have served in the Lord’s kingdom for more years than I am old; and they served their Lord very well. As I have pondered the death of these spiritual giants, I am reminded of the death of Moses and the vacuum his passing created in Israel.

Upon Moses’ death, the children of Israel wept for an entire month on the plains of Moab (Deut. 34:8). The record says regarding Moses, “Since then no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses” (34:10). Yet, God’s cause did not stop upon the death of Moses. After the month of mourning had ended, God spoke to Joshua saying, “Moses My servant is dead; now therefore arise, cross this Jordan, you and all this people, to the land which I am giving to them, to the sons of Israel . . . . Just as I have been with Moses, I will be with you; I will not fail you or forsake you. Be strong and courageous, for you shall give this people possession of the land which I swore to their fathers to give them. Only be strong and very courageous, to be careful to do according to all the law which Moses my servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, so that you may have success wherever you go” (Josh. 1:2, 5-7).

There are a number of observations which I would like to make from the death of Moses and the appointment of Joshua as the new commander over Israel with the purpose of applying them to this present time when we see so many of those who have led the church in the fray against Satan dying in our midst. Consider these thoughts with me:

1. God’s work does not depend upon any one worker, even the greatest of them. When Moses died, there were probably some in Israel who thought that the possibility of conquering the land of Canaan had also died. Yet, God’s work did not die with Moses. He raised up Joshua to take Moses’ place and the work of the Lord continued.

Though these great warriors perfectly realized this truth, the falling of Franklin T. Puckett, Luther Blackmon, C.D. Plum and Frank L. Smith will not cause the work of the Lord to die. The work of the’ Lord must continue uninterrupted by the strokes of death. The man who thinks that God’s cause will die without his presence has an arrogant, conceited attitude toward himself. He is thinking more highly of himself than he ought to think. There are none of us who are indispensable. Though we will miss the sage advice and the brave leadership of those who have passed on, we recognize that the cause of Christ must continue undaunted.

We who remain alive need to carry on the great work which these men began. I am fearful that some of those who are compromising the truth in order to pussyfoot with the liberals have forgotten the heartaches which these great men endured to salvage some of the saints of God from the clutches of liberalism. We need new soldiers who will step into the footprints of those who have fallen, take up their sword, and wield it against the forces of Satan (institutionalism, Calvinism, etc.). We have no sympathy for those who are bent on throwing rocks at those who have fought the battles of the Lord in bygone years.

2. We must prepare ourselves for the new duties which have fallen upon us as a result of the death of these saints. Joshua found many responsibilities upon his shoulders as a result of the death of Moses which’ had not been there before. The same will be true of each of us. Prior to this time, we have been able to rely upon the aged men to do the most of the work. But, one by one our comrades are dying. More and more the duty of battle is falling upon our own shoulders. We must prepare ourselves for these new duties.

3. We must abide in the revelation of God. As Joshua took command of Israel, God told him, “. . . be careful to do according to all the law which Moses my servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, so that you may have success wherever you go” (Josh. 1:7). What a heritage Moses had left for Joshua. He had taught him the necessity of doing exactly the will of the Lord. He revealed the Lord’s warning, “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you” (Deut. 4:2). He left Joshua a good example of obedience in the manner in which he followed the Lord’s pattern in the construction of the tabernacle.

In a similar fashion, we have been given a rich heritage by those who have preceded us. They have insisted upon the Lord’s people steadfastly adhering to the word of God. They have taught us not to turn aside to the right hand or to the left. They have shown us the various apostasies from the Lord’s revelation in areas which we might otherwise not have seen them. They have opposed the sponsoring church concept of church organization, the support of human institutions from the church treasury, the perverting of the mission of the church in order to make it a recreational institution, etc.

And now as we must take over in the place of those who have fallen, we must not turn aside from the revelation of God. Frankly, I am worried about the compromises which some among us are making. Those who in past years stood opposed to institutionalism seem bent upon backing those who are now saying that we can have a unity-in-diversity with the liberals. They are defending the unity-in-diversity crowd; they are pushing their literature. In addition to this, they are doing everything they can to destroy the influence of those of us are opposing them. My brethren, we did not learn to act this way from those who have preceded us in death whose names have been mentioned in this article. They taught us to adhere to the revealed word of God and to not turn aside from it to the right or to the left. They did not teach us to uphold the hands of the liberals and throw rocks at those who are opposed to them. Rather, they taught us to cling to God’s word and lift up the hands of those who stand for His truth. We need to remember that we must abide in the revelation of God.

Conclusion

As we pause for a few moments to reflect upon the influence which these great men have had upon us, let us thank God for the influence of their lives. We anxiously await the time when we can gather together around the throne of God to continue our worship and adoration of God together. These great men would tell us, were they here to do so, to press on in our fight against the arch enemy of God’s people. Let us not be diverted from our work of expanding the borders of the kingdom through evangelism, edifying the saints, and defending the bulwarks from the digression which continues to occur.

Truth Magazine XXI: 48, pp. 755-756
December 8, 1977

By Keith Sharp

The sermon on the Mount is the formal announcement by the Master of the nature of the righteousness of the kingdom of Heaven. The theme of this magnificent discourse is stated in Matthew 5:20:

“For, I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

To understand this statement is to comprehend the relationship of Christ to law and to understand our means of being righteous in the sight of God. How is our righteousness to exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees? How important is it that we have this righteousness?

The Lord’s demand must have thoroughly shocked His audience. To the humble Jews of that period, the scribes and Pharisees were the very epitome of righteousness. But, in reality, Christ repeatedly condemned the scribes and Pharisees in scathing terms for their utter lack of true righteousness (Matt. 6:1-2, 5, 16; 23:13, 15, 16, 23, 25, 27, 29). Primarily, Jesus requires our righteousness to surpass Pharasaic righteousness in “kind.” We must have a different kind of righteousness than the scribes and Pharisees, if we are to enter the kingdom of Heaven.

How can we obtain this higher kind of righteousness? The Pharisees “trusted in themselves that they were righteous” (Lk. 18:9-14). They supposed their purity had earned them salvation. This led the Pharisees to devise human plans and traditions to get around the parts of God’s law which they did not desire to keep (cf. Mt. 15:1-9; Mk. 7:1-14; Rom. 10:1-3) and to compare themselves to sinners worse than themselves rather than to the perfect standard of the law of God (Lk. 18:11; cf. 2 Cor. 10:12). In contrast, our righteousness must be the result of merciful pardon from a gracious Father (Rom. 3:21-28), as we humbly recognize our own guilt of sin (Lk. 18:13) and submit to God’s will (Mt. 7:21). Without this righteousness by pardon as the result of humble, trusting obedience, we cannot be saved, for this is the requirement for entrance into the kingdom of Heaven (Mt. 5:20). But our righteousness must also excel that of the scribes and Pharisees in “degree.” How is this? By strict adherence to the law of God in both teaching and practice (cf. Gal. 1:6-9; Col. 3:17; 1 Tim. 6:3-5; 2 Tim. 1:13; Heb. 8:1-5; 1 Pet. 4:11; 2 Jn. 9; Rev. 22:18-19).

Adherents of the “Free Men in Christ” unity cult brand those who demand strict adherence to the law of Christ as “legalists” and “Pharisees.” Are they correct? In part of a lengthy definition of “legalism,” one of these libertines stated:

Legalism . . . is obviously an attempt to be related to God upon the basis of law (Harold Key, “The Threat of Legalism,” Mission Messenger, Feb., 1963, p. 18).

If this be “legalism,” I plead guilty as charged. After all, it was the Lord Who warned, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). Rather sounds to me as though my relationship to God depends upon my keeping His law.

However, I emphatically deny the “Pharisee” charge. The Lord Jesus Christ never condemned a Pharisee, nor any one else, for teaching and practicing rigid observance of divine law. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, in that they said and did not (Matt. 23:1-4). In contrast, I believe we must be “doers of the word, and not hearers only” (Jas. 1:22-25). The Lord condemned the Pharisees for doing their works to be seen of men (Mt. 23:5-7), whereas we should seek God’s approval, not man’s (Mt. 6:2-6, 16-18). The Pharisees loosed the law of God to keep their own traditions (Mt. 15:1-9; 23:16-22; Mk. 7:1-14), but Christians must disregard human traditions to observe the law of Christ (Col. 2:8-10). Pharisees kept the small details of the law while disregarding the weightier matters (Mt. 23:23-24), whereas we must obey all the law (Mt. 23:23-24; Jas. 2:10-11). The righteousness of the Pharisees consisted of outward, ceremonial observations empty of any true love for God, as proven by their obstinate disobedience (Matt. 23:25-33). We must obey from the heart to be saved (Rom. 6:17-18).

Dear friend, except your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you cannot be saved. Your righteousness must surpass theirs in kind, as the result of the forgiveness of sins based upon humble, trusting obedience. Your righteousness must exceed theirs in degree, as you strictly strive to serve God from your heart and pray for forgiveness when you stumble. Does your righteousness exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees?

Truth Magazine XXI: 48, p. 754
December 8, 1977

By Morris W. R. Bailey

Having pointed out in my previous article that the concept of universal church action was, in a great degree, responsible for the introduction of the American Christian Missionary Society in 1849, with Alexander Campbell as its first president, I now propose to point out its counterpart in

Modern Cooperative Movements

Some one has said that those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. Whether it is through ignorance of history or ignorance of the Bible, or both, the fact is that history is being repeated today in modern cooperative movements in which the resources of a number of local congregations are centralized under some such arrangement as a sponsoring church in evangelism, or a benevolent society in the care of orphans and widows. Such arrangements are based on the same concept of universal church action. So, paradoxical as it appears, brethren rejecting the missionary society itself have adopted the premise which gave it birth.

Alexander Campbell, as pointed out in the previous article, conceived of the kingdom (church universal) as being composed of all local congregations in the aggregate. A few brethren, today, with some variation in the terms used, have adopted basically the same argument. Using Paul’s reference to the church as the body of Christ, with many members thereof (Rom. 12:4,5; 1 Cor. 12:12), the argument has been made that the body of Christ which is the church universal is made up of local congregations.

Over the years brethren have met and answered the old sectarian argument based on the vine and the branches (John 15:5). The argument that has been made is .that the vine is the church universal (they call it the invisible church) and the branches are the various denominations. Now we have brethren making basically the same argument in that they tell us that the members of the body of Christ are local congregations. So the only difference is that sectarians make denominations the members of the universal church, while brethren make local congregations the members. Of course neither are right, for the members of the body of Christ (or church universal) are neither denominations nor local congregations, but individual Christians.

Consider these facts: Before Pentecost in 33 A.D., the kingdom, or church, was preached as being at hand (Matt. 3:1,2; Luke 10:9). But following the first gospel sermon, preached on Pentecost, we find the church in existence with the saved being added to it day by day (Acts 2:47). But on the day of Pentecost, and for some time afterward, there was but one local congregation in existence — the church at Jerusalem. Was the church in the universal sense (composed of all the saved) in existence? Was Christ head over all things to the body (Eph. 1:22,23) on Pentecost? Or was it just a member of the body that was set up that day? And was the body of Christ (the church) formed, just one member at a time as new congregations were established? When Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “Now ye are the body of Christ, and severally members thereof” (1 Cor. 12:27), did he mean that they were members of the church universal, or just members of -a member of the universal church?

Admissions of Universal Church Action

That current cooperative movements with benevolent institutions operated by boards of directors through which many congregations do their benevolent work involve the concept of universal church action has been admitted by some who have been deeply involved in the defense of at least some of the modern orphan homes. As an example, Brother Roy Lanier, Sr., who claimed to occupy a middle-of-the-road position in regard to current issues, wrote a series of articles under that heading in the Firm Foundation a number of years ago in which he strongly opposed the building and church support of orphan homes which were separate and apart from the church and operated by the board of directors from various parts of the country. His position was that such homes, to be scriptural, must be under the elders of the local church.

That Brother Lanier believed that such homes under a board was universal church action is seen in a paragraph quoted from the above article:

“But if some say that these homes are avenues through which the universal church takes care of the needy, I ask for the authority to activate the universal church. If it was sinful for the brethren of a century ago to activate the universal church in forming the missionary society, why Is it now right to activate the universal church in forming a benevolent society?”

It is thus obvious from the above quotation that Brother Lanier paralleled the benevolent societies of today with their boards of directors with the missionary society of a hundred; years ago, in that they were both a means of activating the universal church. In this he was correct. Both are human institutions, devised by the wisdom of men. Both are chartered organizations, with a president and board of directors. And both serve as a means for an unlimited number of congregations to pool their financial resources in doing work assigned to the church.

The Sponsoring Church-Universal Church Action

The same principle of universal church action has been followed, though not openly admitted, in the sponsoring church concept of evangelism. The only difference is that in the area of benevolence the central agency is a corporate institution under a board of directors, while in evangelism the central agency is a local congregation under elders who have assumed more authority than God ever gave them. Of this, the Herald of Truth is a prime example. Sponsored by the Highland church at Abilene, Texas, it is the central agency through which some two thousand local congregations cooperate in the field of evangelism via radio and television. Highland church claims to have complete control over the program. In a brochure published by Highland church early in the history of the program, they said: “The Herald of Truth program is the work of Fifth and Highland church . . . . the elders of this congregation direct and oversee every phase of this work from the preparation of these sermons to mailing copies of these sermons.” In another statement of policy in the same brochure they said, “Questions and criticisms are welcomed, but since this is a work of Highland congregation, to maintain its autonomy or independence, the elders must make the decisions.”

From the above quotations it is plainly obvious that Highland church considers the Herald of Truth to be her own exclusive work. In the Tant-Harper debate Brother Harper said that if you can figure out who is paying for the program you will know whose program it is. The inference he left was that Highland was paying for the program. But the fact is that Highland was not then and is not now paying for the program. It requires the contributions of those hundreds of other congregations without which the program could not continue. Does not that fact make the Herald of Truth program the work of the contributing congregations as well as Highland’s?

And that was the position taken by Guy N. Woods in the Cogdill-Woods debate at Birmingham, Alabama. Twice, on pages 194 and 237, he said that the program was the work of all the contributing congregations, with Highland church having the oversight thereof. This only serves to pinpoint the fact that insofar as the Herald of Truth is concerned, Highland elders are functioning not just as elders of a local work, but of a brotherhood work and therefore as brotherhood elders and to that degree universal elders. They may deny it, but their denial reminds me of the story of the man who came home one night much the worse for alcohol. When his wife chided him for being drunk he replied, “I may be a bit under the influence of alcohol, but I’m not as think as you drunk I am.” His denial of being drunk was contradicted by his actions. And when elders begin overseeing a brotherhood work, they become brotherhood elders in spite of any denials.

So to paraphrase the words of Brother Roy Lamer quoted earlier: “If it was sinful for the brethren of a century ago to activate the universal church in forming the missionary society, why is it now right to activate the universal church in organizing a sponsoring congregation?”

Some of the defenders of the Herald of Truth have been able to see the danger that inheres in one congregation, or group of elders becoming the medium for a brotherhood work. Some three or four years ago when the program had fallen upon evil days with the control having passed into the hands of a committee, one of its former defenders, Ira Rice, Jr. said, “Do you recall just a few years ago, when some of us used to wonder whatever would happen to the churches of Christ if the forces of error should ever get hold of the Herald of Truth. I can just hear the anti-cooperationists rising up as one man to chide, ‘I told you so.’ However, brethren, it is no longer unthinkable. The unthinkable has happened.”

Congregational Action: The New Testament Pattern

In contrast to the colossal, and sometimes grandiose programs that men have set in action today, the work that God has assigned to the church was done in New Testament times by local congregations, each working under the oversight of its elders. That they cooperated in programs that sometimes exceeded the financial ability of any one congregation is not denied. But it was a cooperation that recognized the independence of each congregation.

1. Churches of Macedonia and Achaia and Galatia cooperated in sending relief to brethren in Judea where there was a famine (Rom. 15:26; 1 Cor. 16:1.) No benevolent society was formed through which those churches functioned. Nor is there any evidence that any of the receiving churches acted as a sponsoring church for the others. Each church raised its own contribution, and selected its own messengers to carry the relief to its destination (1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 8:23).

2. Churches cooperated in evangelism. A number of churches sent wages to Paul while he labored at Corinth (2 Cor. 10:8). No missionary society was formed, nor is there any evidence that any congregation acted as “the sponsoring church”. Each church sent its contribution by its own messenger (2 Cor. 10:9; Phil. 2:25).

We close this article with a quotation with which we heartily concur. In the Gospel Advocate annual Lesson Commentary, page 341, Guy N. Woods, in commenting on Philippi’s contribution to Paul (Phil. 4:15,16) said,

“Here too, we see the simple manner in which the church at Philippi joined with Paul in the work of preaching the gospel. There was no missionary society in evidence, and none was needed, The brethren simply raised the money and sent it directly to Paul. This is the way that it should be done today. No organization was needed to accomplish the work the Lord authorized the church to do. When men become dissatisfied with God’s arrangement and set up one of their own, they have already crossed the threshold of apostasy. Let us be satisfied with the Lord’s manner of doing things.”

To which we say a hearty, “Amen!”

Truth Magazine XXI: 47, pp. 748-749
December 1, 1977

By Baxter Evans

I have been asked to write an article accompanying the picture appearing on the cover of this issue of Truth Magazine. I confess that I am not a writer (to that art I make no claim) but have decided to accept the challenge and do my best. So, in thinking and wrestling in my mind of something profitable to say, I thought of the statement, “Be ye kind one to another.” Our thoughts for this article will be based upon Matt. 7:12 and Eph. 4:31-32.

There is a law of purity which forbids all manner of uncleanness such as adultery, fornication, lasciviousness, etc. The law of purity is binding. Those who violate it dishonor God and suffer grave consequences. There is also a law of kindness which is just as sacred and just as binding as the law of purity. Those who violate it also dishonor God and bring upon themselves divine displeasure. It is unto this law that I direct your attention. It may be divided into the following three parts:

1. Be ye kind in thought. Whatsoever ye would that men should think about you, even so think ye about them. You would not have men to think evil of you-to be bitter in heart toward you, to be angry at you, to hold malice against you, to believe the worst about you. Then, you must think no evil of them. You would have men to think good of you, to be tenderhearted toward you, to forgive you, to believe the best of you. Then, you must think good of them. So, be ye kind in thought.

2. Be ye kind in word. Whatsoever ye would that men should say about you, even so say ye about them. You would not have men to speak evil of you, whether it be to your face or to your back; you would not have them tell ugly tales about you, to smear your good name, to speak unkindly about you. Then, you must not speak evil of the. Speak evil of no man. You would have them to speak good of you, to recognize your good deeds and noble traits, to promote friendly relationships between you and your neighbor. Then, you are under solemn obligation to speak good of them.

3. Be ye kind in deed. Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye unto them. You would not have them to do unkind deeds to you which injure your body, damage your property or hurt the people you love. Then, you must do them no injury. You would have them to do kind deeds to you to help you in the hour of misfortune, to lift you when you are fallen, etc. Therefore, you must do as much for them (Lk. 10:30-35; Gal. 6:1-2). Every good thing that you in your heart require others to do unto you, God requires you to do the same unto them.

Truth Magazine XXI: 47, p. 747
December 1, 1977