Truth Magazine

By Morris W. R. Bailey

Having pointed out in a previous article that handling aright the word of truth requires that we recognize the distinction between the church universal and the church local, I now propose to show that a proper division of the word also requires that we recognize the distinction that the Bible makes between

The Church And The Individual

In the discussion of the issues that have risen to trouble the churches during the past quarter century regarding church subsidization of human institutions such as colleges and benevolent corporations operated by brethren, much has been said about this matter and a great deal of confusion regarding the above distinction has become evident. The position that has been taken by some is that since the church is made up of individuals, whatever the individual may do, the church may do, and whatever the individual does, it is the church that does it.

A Concept Born Of Necessity

This concept is a child of necessity adopted by those who favor church support of human institutions that most brethren agree may be supported by individual Christians. It has been said that necessity is the mother of invention. This has often proved to be true in the material realm, and is responsible for many of the good things that we enjoy today.

Unfortunately, however, it has also proved to be true in the spiritual realm to the detriment of Christianity in that it has been the occasion for the introduction of many false doctrines and practices. One false doctrine has made necessary, or at least given birth to, others equally false. Infant baptism was introduced because of the previously espoused doctrine of hereditary depravity and to (supposedly) save those dying in infancy. The doctrine of the direct operation of the Holy Spirit in conversion is an outgrowth of the previously espoused doctrine of the total depravity of man.

It is thus not surprising that when some among us wanted to justify church support of colleges and other institutions operated by brethren which most brethren agree may be supported by individual Christians, they resorted to the argument that since the church is composed of individuals, what the individual may do the church may also do in the matter of good works.

Representative of the thinking of some brethren along that line is a quotation which I have taken from a tract written some years ago by Batsell Barret Baxter of David Lipscomb College. The tract was entitled, Questions And Issues Of The Day In The Light Of The Scriptures. While the subject of church support of human institutions was argued from various standpoints, for the purpose of this article, attention is directed to one paragraph where Brother Baxter said:

“In view of all that has been said above, it is now possible to state what I believe to be a broad general principle. Any ‘good work’ which the individual, as a Christian, is obligated to support financially, the church is equally obligated to support financially. There has been a great deal of talk about what the Individual can do in supporting good works, and what the church cannot do in supporting the same good works. No such distinction is taught In the Scriptures. If it is a good work which the Lord wants done, the obligation falls equally upon the individuals and the church, for individuals are the church.”

Sentiments similar to the above have been written and voiced by other writers and speakers. It is just another facet of the idea advanced by the digressives in justification of instrumental music in the worship, that what is permissible in the home is also permissible in the church.

An Interesting Paradox

The disposition to confuse church action with individual action has paradoxically led its proponents to sometimes arrive at conclusions that are diametrically opposed to one another. For example: it has been used to justify church support of colleges operated by brethren. The argument goes this way: (1) The church is made up of individual Christians. (2) What the individual does the church does. (3) The individual may support the college. (4) Therefore, the church may support the college.

On the other hand, Daniel Sommer was, for the greater part of his life, a staunch opponent of colleges operated by brethren, even to the point of one time denying their right to exist. His reasoning went this way: (1) The church is made up of individual Christians. (2) What the church is not permitted to do the individual is not permitted to do. (3) The church cannot support the college. (4) Therefore, neither can the individual support it. Thus we have the strange spectacle of men arriving at opposite conclusions while arguing from the same basic premise.

The Premise Examined

On what premise does Brother Baxter (and others) base the conclusion that what the individual may do in the matter of good works, the church may also do? This, I believe, is spelled out clearly in the closing words of the paragraph from which we quoted.

“If it is a good work which the Lord wants done, the obligation falls equally upon the individual and upon the church, for individuals are the church” (emphasis mine-MWRB).

In further elaboration of this point, Brother Baxter said in another paragraph of his tract:

“The church Is the people and Christians are the church all of the time. At midnight and at dawn, wherever they may be, Christians constitute the Lord’s church . . . . Christians are the church, whether at home, or In a place of business, or in the public assembly for worship . . .”

It is thus seen that the basic premise from which church action is identified with individual action is that Christians (individuals) are the church all of the time and in all places.

With the exception of those who published The Sentinel a few years ago, I know of no one who contends that the church is the church only when it is assembled for worship. Most assuredly the church is made up of individuals. And just as assuredly are they the church all the time, awake or asleep, in the assembly and away from the assembly.

But, granting that the church is made up of individuals, and further granting that what the church does is through its members working in concert, does that prove that what the individual does the church does? Would those who thus aver be willing to pursue that premise to its logical conclusion?

1. Christians are the church all of the time and to all places.

2. What the individual Christian does it is the church that is doing it.

3. A Christian is charged with and convicted of stealing money.

4. Therefore the church was guilty of stealing money.

Now, can anyone deny the conclusion if premise number two is true? Was not the Christian a member of the church (albeit, a sinful member) when he stole that money? But if what the individual Christian does the church does, did not this individual’s action make the church guilty of theft? If not, why not?

Consider another example. In the fifth chapter of First Corinthians, Paul wrote about a case of fornication on the part of one of the members of the church (1 Cor. 5:1). True, the church was severely censured by Paul for its failure to exercise discipline. But did this one member’s sin involve the whole church in fornication? This raises some questions that are germane to the issue.

1. Since Christians are in the church all the time, was not this man in the church when committing fornication? Does not Paul’s words, “one of you hath his father’s wife” make it obvious that the offender was a member of the church at the time that the sin was committed?

2. But, if what the individual does the church does, did not then the act of this member make the whole church guilty of fornication, according to the reasoning of Brother Baxter? Furthermore, when Paul commanded the church to take action against this member, was he not, in effect, commanding the church to take action against itself? And when Paul later commanded the church to forgive the man and receive him back (2 Cor. 2:6-8), was he commanding the church to forgive and receive itself?

But since it was stated by Brother Baxter in his tract that “No such distinction (between the church and the individual–M) is taught in the scriptures,” and that “any good work which a Christian is obligated to support financially, the church is equally obligated to support financially,” I propose to show in an article to follow that the scriptures do indeed recognize the distinction between the church and the individual Christian, and moreover that the individual is charged with financial responsibilities that the church is forbidden to assume.

Truth Magazine XXI: 48, pp. 759-760
December 8, 1977

By James W. Adams

Luther Blackmon was born March 24, 1907 at Bald Prairie, Texas , a country community near Franklin, Texas. He departed this life in Marion, Indiana, Tuesday, July 5, 1977. This means that he was 70 years, 4 months, and 8 days of age. For a number of years, Luther had been afflicted with an extremely rare and irreversible brain disease which little by little destroyed his memory. Consequently, he had been compelled to live in a convalescent home where he could receive constant care. The facility is one of the best in the State of Indiana, hence Brother Luther received the most expert attention, Those who visited him there report that he was content and happy. It has only been in recent months that he has failed to recognize those nearest and dearest to him.

However, Brother Luther’s brain affliction did not take his life. He developed another acute organic disorder which required emergency surgery. The surgery was successful, but a blood clot resulted which caused heart failure.

Death came to Luther, not as an enemy, but as a friend. It came to release his magnificent, born-again spirit from its state of bondage in a diseased and pain racked body that it might be free to “depart and be with Christ” – the Cl)tist whom Luther had so long and so faithfully served “in season and out of season.” Tears course down my cheeks as I pen these lines, not because death has finally come to set my beleaguered friend and brother free, but because of the multitude of memories that fill my mind – memories of other places, other years, other circumstances, and experiences that shall never ‘be mine upon this earth again. Slowly, but surely, I find myself with more friends in the unseen realm of the dead than in the land of the living. How unbearable bleak life would be were it not for the eye of faith that transcends the realms of time through the efficacy of the glorious light of the gospel of the crucified Christ.

We Met Him Here

As Gertrude (my wife) and I sat sadly in the auditorium of the building of the Norhill congregation in Houston, Texas, last Friday morning and listened to Brother Roy E. Cogdill speak movingly over the lifeless body of Luther Blackmon, we almost simultaneously said to one another, “Do you realize that we met Luther Blackmon for the first time not more than fifteen feet from the place where his body now lies?” This was Wednesday evening, June 3, 1936. Gertrude and I were not yet married. I was preaching in Vivian, Louisiana and was visiting her in Houston. I was in my first full time local work, and Luther, though some older than I, was also comparatively new as a preacher. Oscar Smith,Sr. was at that time the Norhill preacher. This means that my acquaintance with Luther Blackmon goes back more than forty-one years. Not long after this, at Luther’s invitation, I preached at 26th and Lowell where he labored. Neither of us ever forgot this occasion. My only watch was a $1.98 Ingersoll pocket watch. I took it out and laid it on the pulpit stand and forgot it when the service was over. I never got that watch back. Luther declared he did not know what happened of it. However, he faithfully remembered to tell everybody about my valuable watch, which he lost for me, almost every time we worked together through the years.

Since that long ago Wednesday evening in the morning of our lives as preachers, Luther and I have worked together many times in many places for the Lord. Between him and me there has never been, as far as I can recall, a difference of any kind. He was a person easy to love and impossible to disrespect. In some ways, he lived a hard and lonely life. In other ways, his life was rich and full. Early in life, he suffered a marriage failure. While most preachers would probably consider Luther to have had scriptural right to remarriage, he never did. He could not get the consent of his mind to risk his chance for heaven on any course other than one absolutely certain. His right to remarry was to him not certain, hence he lived a single life until the day of his death. Being the social person that he was, this was a great burden, a cross, which he bore. Though he longed for companionship to complement his life, his love for the Lord and respect for His word was greater. He discussed this aspect of his life with me many times, so I believe I knew his heart and his life, and knowing them, I hesitate not to affirm there is in my mind no doubt that Luther is “with the Lord” and that his “death was gain.”

Luther As A Preacher

Luther Blackmon was as good a preacher as I have ever heard. He was not learned as far as formal scholastic training was concerned, and he never affected an air of erudition. In fact, there was no affectation about him. Like Popeye of comic fame, he could truthfully say, “I yam what I yam.” However Luther was widely read – he knew, good books and he used them. He was mighty in the Scriptures, eloquent in speech, and had heart appeal to the average individual that was almost uncanny. He had an easy style of delivery, and his sermons were punctuated by apt illustrations from common life that indelibly impressed his points upon the minds of his hearers. His illustrations were homely but never crude or vulgar. While I was living in Nacogdoches, Texas, he conducted a meeting for us at Mound and Starr. During one of his lessons, I became so obviously amusedthat he noticed. After the lesson, he asked, “What were you laughing about?” I said, “That illustration of yours.” He said, “What illustration?” I told him, “You said a certain fellow `stood there like a calf looking through a new gate’?” “Why,” he said, “James, haven’t you ever seen a little ole calf standing with a curious expression on his face looking at a new gate?” Perhaps I never had, but every person in that house who had been reared on a farm knew exactly what he was talking about.

Among people who knew Luther and who were not prejudiced by disagreement with the scriptural principles for which he stood, he was universally popular and universally loved. He had a phenomenal memory. He could quote reams of Scripture and poems without end. Even in his last illness, after his memory was almost gone, he could quote poem after poem from beginning to end verbatim. As a preacher, he was never dull or uninteresting.

Luther made no claims to originality as a preacher. About this he has talked to me many times. However, he had the happy faculty of being able to take the thoughts originated by another and put them together in lucid and appealing style and preach them better than the individual who had originated them. He has often told me that one of the greatest blessings ever bestowed upon him was his opportunity to be associated with Roy E. Cogdill. He said it had given depth to his preaching that he could never have achieved any other way. This is an excellent commentary on the character and attitude of this great Christian. Though endowed with tremendous ability, he was one of the most self-effacing and generous men I have ever known. He never sought preeminence, but was willing to serve wherever he could be used witn no thought of personal gain either with respect to reputation, place, or momentary advantage. The brethren recognized his ability by calling him to preach in churches large and small throughout the nation. His labors carried him from the Atlantic to the Pacific Oceans and from Canada to Mexico. He was at his best in meeting work, but was also an excellent man in local work, and an accomplished writer when he chose to do so.

When I first knew Luther, he was doing much song directing. He was a good director, but his preaching soon eclipsed this aspect of his talent. He loved to sing, either religious songs or secular. Being a country boy, he loved country and western music, and one did not have to twist his arm much to get him to do either. It was most fitting that one of the songs used at his funeral service was chosen for this reason: “When All of God’s Singers Get Home.”

The Funeral Service

As previously noted, the services were conducted in the building of the Norhill congregation in Houston, Texas. Luther had preached in this building many times and his brother, Hollis Blackmon, is one of its most devoted members. Oscar Smith, Jr., Norhill Evangelist, and Roy E. Cogdill conducted the services and Brother Robert Goodman, Oak Forest preacher, led the congregational singing. Services were at 10 a.m., Friday, July 8. Interment was at 3 p.m. at Bald Prairie, Texas, with grave side services.

Brother Smith read numerous Scriptures, made appropriate remarks, and led a prayer. Brother Cogdill delivered a masterful, eloquent, and tenderly, emotional address based on Philippians 1:12-23. He began by quoting a statement which he had heard C. R. Nichol once make at a funeral service: “I am glad that God permits men to die.”

Brother Cogdill took Nichol’s statement and coupled it with Paul’s statement, “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” He then called attention to Brother Luther Blackmon’s exemplary life as a Christian and the physical condition of his body in the years just preceding his death and declared that “death came to Luther as a sweet release.” Luther was a faithful Christian; his body was no longer a suitable habitation for his spirit; so Brother Cogdill pointed out that it was “better for him to depart and be with Christ.” Having established these points, Brother Cogdill proceeded to show the basis upon which a Christian may entertain this view of life. His points were four in number, and they follow:

(1) Complete faith and trust in the mercy, grace, goodness, love, and promises of God with reference to salvation through Christ make this view of life and death tenable; namely, “to live is Christ, and to die is gain.”

(2) The immortality of the human spirit makes it certain that life does not end with the grave.

(3) The resurrection of the body renders death, as William Jennings Bryan eloquently put it: “A starlit passage from one realm to another and better realm.”

(4) The judgment and the fact of human accountability based on the “deeds done in the body” make this view of life completely valid to those who yield themselves to God and serve him faithfully.

Brother Cogdill beautifully summarized his lesson by pointing out that all of us, along with Luther, can prostrate ourselves upon the dying couch, in the words of the poet, “as one who lays himself down to pleasant dreams,” if we yield ourselves to God and our lives to His service. Roy’s sermon was interspersed with many poignant references to Luther Blackmon’s life and work. Those present, almost to a person, were Luther’s personal friends of many years. It was like one large family saying a tearful but hopeful good-by to a dear one embarking on a long journey. We wept together like David over Jonathan.

Conclusion

Luther Blackmon, our friend and brother is gone. His footprints in the cause of Christ in our generation are everywhere, therefore he will not be soon forgotten. God bless his memory and enlarge the influence of his life!

Reprinted from The Gospel Guardian.

Truth Magazine XXI: 48, pp. 757-758
December 8, 1977

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