Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

“Gymnastics For Christ”

Several years ago when I first started preaching, I heard brethren criticizing the denominations for some of the shenanigans they used to draw crowns which were clearly unauthorized in God’s word. Some of the things which denominations have used in areas where I have preached are as follows: (1) Karate For Christ. A man who held the black belt in Karate came to a certain church to break a few brick bats and to slip in a little gospel while he was there. (2) Talking Birds. Another evangelist had a different presentation in that he had certain birds which he had trained to quote scripture. Of course, the birds received greater advertising than did the scriptures. (3) Chalk Artists. Several denominations have used men who were expert in the use of chalk to draw people out to see them, I mean to hear the gospel. (4) Fooey Louie, The Gospel Magician. One of the most ridiculous displays I have seen, however, occurred in Avon, Indiana where a local Baptist church had Fooey Louie, The Gospel Magician entertain, I mean teach, the children. During the course of his ad, he produced a dove (or pigeon) which subsequently started flying all over the auditorium. The whole group became concerned about catching it. Having witnessed that scene, I can guarantee you that there was not much gospel taught there.

But, my brethren, in recent years, some who call themselves “Churches of Christ” have gotten in the act. Hence, we do not hear many sermons from them in which they criticize the denominations for these ridiculous acts to draw a crowd. In the January 1, 1970 issue of The Examiner (bulletin of the church which meets at 1201 Meeks Street in Corinth, Mississippi), W. Eural Bingham published a picture and article regarding some of our liberal brethren’s escapades at that time. Under a picture published in an Oxford, Mississippi newspaper which showed Jack Exum holding a shotgun was this caption:

“Evangelist Jack Exum holds two of the 35 weapons that will be on display at the Sunday evening service at 7:30 p.m. at the Church of Christ on North Lamar. Mr. Exum has been conducting services at the church each night this week. Calvin Conn is pastor of the local Church of Christ.”

Now you know why you are not hearing Jack Exum preach lessons about the ridiculous things the denominationals are doing to draw a crowd. He is one of them!

Last week, another bulletin crossed my desk. It was the Medina Children’s Home News (June, 1977). Under the heading “An Unusual . . . But Interesting Lesson,” the News featured a picture of a man dressed in the outfit which gymnasts wear while performing a routine who was going through a gymnastics routine. Underneath the picture was this caption:

“Ben Zickefoose, Assistant Professor in Physical Education at Abilene Christian University brought a very interesting lesson, ‘Gymnastics For Christ’, to the staff and children at Medina Home. We are grateful to Ben for sharing with us his time and talents in such a manner.”

Frankly, I would just as soon send orphans to a Baptist group if this is typical of the “religious upbringing” these kids are receiving at the hand of “Christians.” Regardless of whether or not it is right to support benevolent institutions from church treasuries (which I am convinced is altogether without Bible authority), those who are running the show at Medina Children’s Home are teaching those children who are being raised there a gospel of gimmicks and not the gospel of Christ.

New Herald Of Truth TV Programs

The next quarter of TV programs to be shown by Herald of Truth has been announced. I think that the titles of these programs reveal the direction in which the program is headed. Here are the titles for the next quarter of year of programming:

“I’m Lonely”

“The High Cost of Fear”

“I’m Unhappy”

“I’m Facing Divorce”

“I’m Getting Old”

“I Feel Guilty”

“I’m Drinking Too Much”

“I’m Frustrated”

“I’ve Lost Everything”

“I’m Dying”

“I Have a Rebellious Child”

“My Health Is Gone”

I think that you can see the emphasis of this series of programs; it has turned away from teaching men the nature of the Lord’s church in contrast to denominationalism and from teaching God’s plan of salvation in contrast to what the denominations are telling men that they must do to be saved. Instead, it is concentrating its time to meeting the social needs of man.

For a number of years, the representatives of Herald of Truth have bragged about the fact that certain denominations are using their films and that the television networks are giving them free air time. Why shouldn’t the denominations use their material? Herald of Truth is not teaching any distinctive doctrines! They are not teaching the oneness of the church and the exclusive plan of salvation revealed by Jesus Christ. Instead, they are teaching the same things that denominations have been teaching for years.

During the years from 1966 to 1971 (the latest figures which I have available to me at the present), the networks paid for 61.5- of the air time which was used by Herald of Truth. Does it ever occur to you to ask why the networks are willing to donate $4,180,488 in free air time to the Herald of Truth? Is it because the men who are managing the networks are such devoted Christians? Is it because they are in sympathy with what the Herald of Truth is trying to teach as to the oneness of the church and the divine plan of salvation? Certainly not! The reason that the networks are willing to donate so much free air time to Herald of Truth is because it is the best entertainment they can air on Sunday morning. They are interested in but one thing-having the largest viewing audience. They apparently feel that Herald of Truth is the most likely to be watched of the programs to be aired. You brethren who are on the radio and television in the various areas across the country, are radio stations giving you free air time? Why would they give free air time to Herald of Truth and not to you? I suggest that one reason is that you are not coddling the denominations as Herald of Truth is doing.

Bus Ministry

I continue to be amazed at some of the things which I have heard used as gimmicks to persuade children to ride the “Joy Bus.” I have heard of brethren hiding $5.00 under one of the seats of the bus so that the lucky kid who happened to be sitting in it would become $5.00 richer. I have heard of them promising the kids Kool-aid and candy, a stop at Burger Chef or McDonald’s, a free ice cream cone, etc.

I know of one man who decided that it was time for him to leave the liberals when he was asked to write a check for $98.00 to pay for one month’s supply of candy which was being given to bribe the children to ride one church’s “Joy Bus.” As the treasurer of the congregation, he refused to write the check and decided to identify with a sound congregation in this area.

But, of all the stunts which I have heard used to increase the number of people who ride the “Joy Bus,” this one has got to take the cake, I mean the pie. It seems that the church in Centerville, Ohio was trying to increase the number of persons who were riding their “Joy Bus” so they offered to let the team captain of the bus who brought the most to the services hit one of the elders in the face with a cream pie during one of the services of the church. And so they did at one of the Wednesday night services!

Can you imagine that, my brethren? One of the men who is supposed to be respected for his spiritual leadership and his concern for the Lord’s church, allowing this to go on in the meeting house of the Lord’s people? He who should be one of the respected leaders being made the laughingstock of the church and the world! Woe be to the shepherds of Israel who lead the Lord’s people to such travesty. Instead of being hit with a cream pie at that end of his body, the elder who would allow this needs to be kicked at the other end of his body.

But, my brethren, if you want to be with the religious “in” crowd, you are supposed to close you eyes to such like and preach about the wonderful grace of God and the sweet unity which exists among God’s people. (Frankly, if these be God’s people, I have trouble distinguishing them from the Devil’s children; they look too much alike.) However, we are to keep saying “peace, peace” regardless of what we see going on among us, if our unity-in-diversity brethren are correct. After all, no one was ever cast out of the kingdom of God because of imbecility-not even imbecility of intellect. So, keep your mouth shut and go on preaching peace and love.

Frankly, I am not going to shut my mouth. I am going to oppose sin whenever and wherever I see it, even if in so doing I must oppose those who once stood for the truth. Truth is truth and sin is sin regardless of who practices it and preaches it. The fact that those who are guilty of sin have been properly baptized does not alter the fact that what they are doing is destroying the Lord’s church. He who destroys God’s church must be opposed.

Truth Magazine XXI: 45, pp. 707-709
November 17, 1977

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Virginia: “Recently in a gospel meeting, the preacher taught that Jesus was not the Christ until after the crucifixion. This was based on the prophecy that Christ would be raised. It was also based on Acts 2:36. I reasoned that Jesus was already the Christ before the crucifixion (1 Jn. 4:1-4; Matt. 16:16-20). Would you please comment on this?”

Reply:

Jesus was the Christ, the anointed one. He accepted this title before His death. (1) Peter said, “Thou art the Christ …and Jesus answered …Blessed art thou Simon” (Matt. 16:17, 18). (2) The Samaritan woman whom Jesus encountered at Jacob’s well said, “I know that Messiah cometh which is called Christ ….Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he” (Jn. 4:25, 26). (3) “Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am” (Mk. 14:61, 62). Thus, thrice did the Lord accept the title of Christ before His crucifixion.

Psalm 2; Isaiah 2; Acts 2

As Psalm 2:2 shows, Jesus was Jehovah’s Anointed. “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed.” The “anointed” simply means the Christ. Opposition to the Lord’s anointed began at His birth (Matt 2). This was in fulfillment of the prophetic Psalm (Acts 4:25-27). At sundry times and in divers manners, “the kings of the earth . . . and the rulers” took “counsel together against the Lord and against his anointed,” the Messiah, the Christ (Lk. 4:28, 29; Jn. 8:59; 10:31). Finally, they called and clamored for His crucifixion. When they secured His death, they thought they were rid of Him, “Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion” (Psa. 2:6). The “king” of Psalm 2:6 is the “anointed.” So, God declares, despite their designs, I have set my king upon the throne.

The “mountain of the Lord,” the Lord’s kingdom, was established and exalted (Isa. 2:2), and its king was enthroned upon Jehovah’s “holy hill (kingdom) of Zion” (Psa. 2:6). The “mountain” of Isaiah 2 is the “holy hill” of Psalm 2. This placing of the king in power was done after Jesus’ suffering, death, resurrection and ascension (Lk. 24:25, 26, 46-49). Paul describes the setting of the king in His kingdom. He says it was effected or accomplished by the “mighty power” of God “which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come” (Eph. 1:20, 21). When was it? It was “when he raised him from the dead.” What was done? Christ was positioned at God’s own right hand. Where? He was set “in the heavenly places,” this is, “upon the holy hill” as the king of the mountain or kingdom. It was simply the exaltation and coronation of Christ. Because Jesus “became obedient unto death,” “God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name (a power, authority, or dominion)” (Phil. 2:9). Peter says the very same thing (Acts 2:29-36).

When the mountain of the Lord was established, God set His king upon that mountain. In other words, when the kingdom was established, God installed and enthroned “his anointed” as the king (Cf. Isa. 2:2; Psa. 2:6, 7). Jesus was the Christ, but He was not given His universal dominion until after His resurrection, ascension, and inauguration (Psa. 2:6, 7; Lk. 24:46, 47; Acts 2:36-38; 13:32-34). It is parallel to David. David was anointed king of Israel before the death of Saul (1 Sam. 16). David, however, exercised no authority as king until after the death of Saul. He recognized Saul as “the Lord’s anointed” even after he had been anointed as king (2 Sam. 1:14). So, Jesus was the Lord’s anointed, but He did not bear the rule until He was placed upon the “holy hill of Zion.”

Truth Magazine XXI: 45, p. 706
November 17, 1977

By Donald P. Ames

Churches of Christ have long disavowed the name “Campbellites” that certain of our denominational friends (?) have sought to tag on to us. Yet, I can not help but feel that if one examined some of our sermons and writings, there is indeed good cause for some of these people to feel (incorrectly, of course) that Campbell is the founder of the Lord’s church. I have just finished reading a very interesting, and good, article by Lindsey Warren in the October, 1976 quarterly issue of The Spiritual Sword (edited by Thomas B. Warren, and dedicated to fighting the extreme liberalism that has become such a problem in the liberal camp today). I enjoyed the courageous and bold approach that it took toward being ready to defend the truth in debate and amidst opposition and, to such, can add a hearty “amen.”

But there is something else about the article I wish to focus attention on for a few minutes. The article was entitled, “The New Testament And Controversy.” I assumed from such a title I would learn a great deal of New Testament teaching on the subject, and also by the fact that the first point mentioned in the “Notes” at the end was: “All conclusions in this article are based on the teachings of the Bible, the sacred revelation of God to man.” But, as I began reading, I was almost forced to ask if the writer had any ideas and convictions of his own at all, and if so, what were they?

The article comprised a total of 16 1 / 2 pages about 3 / 4 the size of one page of Truth Magazine. In that space, the first full page was spent solely in introducing his material, thus leaving us 15 1 / 2 pages for the body. Bit, what was glaringly noticeable was that if Alexander Campbell had not lived, the writer would not have had very much to tell us about what the New Testament had to say about controversy (and this problem is not just limited to our liberal brethren). Alexander Campbell was directly referred to by name a total of 104 times in that article and alluded to (“he said,” etc.) as authority another 86 times! That makes a total of 190 references to Campbell as an authority within one article. Even most of the conclusions reached were not “the N.T. thus affirms. . .”, but rather “Thus he concluded . . . .” I would suggest the writer needed to look at Gal. 1:12.

I am not accusing the writer of not using any scriptures, because he did take a couple pages abandoning Campbell long enough to form some arguments of his own to tell us somewhat of what the New Testament taught-often using clumps of scriptures at the end of a point to support it. Omitting his introduction with a large clump of scriptures on another point entirely, he did refer to 148 scriptures. But since his subject was “The New Testament and Controversy,” and not ‘Alexander Campbell and Controversy,” such overwhelming reliance on Campbell cannot help but make one wonder which was really his authority? It is good to read and learn about great preachers. It is good to respect a man for his grasp of Bible teaching on a subject. But let us beware that we do not become so wedded to the “Restoration Movement” that we begin erecting our own “founder.” Let us do our own thinking, form our own arguments, and reach our own conclusions!

We can profit from their material and be thankful for their studied writings, but when a subject is “The New Testament and ,” let us talk about what the New Testament says on it, not what Campbell, Lipscomb, and others taught. These men also made their mistakes. They are not our authority and we need to recognize them no more than any other preacher living today-except for the work they did during their time.

Such frequent quoting from the writings of early preachers as was done in this article quickly lends support to the idea Campbell must be more than just a good gospel preacher. “He must be some sort of authority.” “They derive their doctrine from him.” Could it be some gospel preachers are creating their own problems?

Truth Magazine XXI: 44, pp. 701-702
November 10, 1977

By Dennis C. Abernathy

As the title of this article states, we want to talk about “name calling,” “one’s attitude,” and “Matthew chapter 23” in connection with preaching the gospel of Christ. There are some today, as there have always been, who do not like it, when names are called from the pulpit. “Don’t attack the denominations,” they say. “It will do no good.” “It will prejudice the hearers and drive them away.” They will accuse you of using “bullying and badgering” tactics under the guise of “preaching the truth.” They will leave the impression that you (in trying to justify name-calling) are just trying to cover up your bad attitude.

I simply ask, “Is it wrong to ever call names (identify the source of sin) in preaching?” Is it wrong to identify a false teacher? Is it wrong to name a denomination and refute their false doctrine? Is it wrong to mark and identify a heretic or a sower of discord among brethren? I just wonder if it is brethren? I have always thought it to be proper to do the aforementioned things in preaching. I have always used the examples of Paul, Stephen, and the Lord Himself for authority to do this: Paul called a man the “child of the Devil” (Acts 13:10). Why did he do that? Verse eight says he was trying to “turn away the deputy from the faith.” Verse 10 says he was “perverting the right ways of the Lord.” Now I realize fully that Paul was filled with the Holy Ghost and his “very words were given to Him by the Father.” Does that mean I cannot preach like Paul preached today, simply because I must use the written word? Are there any today who try to turn people away from the faith? Are there any today who pervert the right ways of the Lord? If one today is doing what Elymas did in Acts 13, would he not be a “child of the Devil”? Then why label one as having a bad attitude for calling a person what he is? I see nothing wrong with calling a person a child of the Devil (after all, what is a person if he is not a child of God?).

I submit to you that the same is true concerning Jesus and what He said in Matthew 23. People still do as the Pharisees did. It has nothing to do with “looking into a man’s heart.” It has to do with his action. Can we not know if a man is hypocritical if he is saying one thing and doing another? That is surely the case with Paul rebuking Peter to his face. Did Paul have to “look into Peter’s heart” to recognize that? (Gal. 2).

Brethren and friends, I do not believe we should “cram the truth down another’s throat,” or “intimidate and harass” one in our preaching. We should use common courtesy in our preaching. We must “preach the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15). But my friends, I do not believe this implies softening down our preaching to “smooth words and fair speeches.” Let us attack error on every hand, call sin what it is, correct the sinner and rebuke the false teacher calling names if we must. H. Leo Boles in commenting on Matthew chapter 23 stated, “This condemnation and warning of the scribes and Pharisees has its practical value -today” (New Testament Commentary on Matthew, p. 441). To that I say Amen!

Truth Magazine XXI: 44, p. 701
November 10, 1977