Truth Magazine

By Luther Blackmon

In the Old Testament the amount that Jews had to give is pretty definite. Some think they only gave a tenth. They did not “give” a tenth. They were taxed a tenth. They came more nearly giving 25% than 10 % .

In the New Testament the Lord has left the amount to us–put us on our honor. “Give as prospered;” as we “purpose in our hearts,” “cheerfully.” Have you ever considered the danger inherent in this freedom? If you have not, it is time you did. The very freedom which God has granted us in our giving (as “prospered” and as we “purpose in our hearts”) may be the means of causing us to lose our souls. Seldom have I met a member of the church who was not concerned with the “amount” he should give. And I have found that generally speaking, what he wants to know is how “little” can I give? What is the very least the Lord will accept? He wonders if a tenth, a tithe, will do. Either this fellow does not care or he has not yet learned that the very fact that God did not specify the amount we are to give is the means of testing us.

One fellow asked, “How is a man to treat his wife?” The answer came back, “Love her with all your heart and then just treat her any way you please.” Of course if he loves her with all his heart he would not mistreat her. And I might add that he wouldn’t spend much time wondering if she could make out with one dress and one pair of shoes. Not if he loved her. The Lord knew about this disposition in man before we found out about it. And the Lord knows that if we love Him, we will not have to be told exactly how much we must give. In leaving it up to us He makes it a test of our love for Him and for His church.

If “as he is prospered” means “how little” to you, you need to be converted to Christ-at least on this point. If “as he is prospered” means “how much can I spare and still meet my obligation to my family,” then you have found out why the Lord did not tell us how much to give. Giving is a grace, Paul said. And grace is something God does for us, not something we do for Him. God does not need your money. He does not need you. Then why did He tell us to give? He could have preached the gospel to every man on earth through the medium of angels if He had desired to do it that way. Where then did we get the idea that God needs our money? The only reason on earth that God requires us to give anything is for our benefit — to help us. What other motive could have prompted the Creator of the universe, including man, to ask for the use of our measly, soiled dollars. Ask yourself that question out loud sometime and then be honest with the answer.

Truth Magazine XXI: 41, pp. 653-654
October 20, 1977

By Jeffery Kingry

There is a movement in the religious community (notably on the college campuses) that the denominationalist finds hard to define. “This modern non-redemptive religion is called ‘modernism,’ or ‘liberalism.’ Both names are unsatisfactory . . . the movement is so various in its manifestations that one may almost despair of finding any common name which will apply to all its forms. But manifold as are the forms in which the movement appears, the root of the movement is one: . . . the denial of any miraculous demonstration by God in connection with the origin of Christianity” (Machen, J. G., Christianity and Liberalism, p. 2).

Actually, the word Mr. Machen is looking for is “unbelief.” Modern religious scholars simply do not believe in the New Testament testimony: of itself, or of its core and theme, Jesus the Christ. I do not believe that the unbelief of the scholar and clergy necessarily reflects the views held by the common man, even though these “religious skeptics” would like to think so. The fallacy of equating what goes on in the intellectual community-and only a segment of that-with the whole of society is one that has been so enshrined among academics, that he who questions it is viewed as just a little bit odd.

The modern unbeliever has his “faith” or system of beliefs. He believes in the evolution of man, or his non-miraculous beginning, humanism (that man is the sole determiner of his destiny and role in the world), and moral relativity. He is firmly convinced that before religion can be of any use to “modern man,” that religion must be reconciled to man’s new intellectual attainments. “During the middle decades of the 19th century, the western nations went ‘over the hump of transition’ towards a new ethos of industrial enterprise, urbanization, and rationalism, accompanied with locally varying programmes or creeds like liberalism, evolutionism, socialism, or historicism. These and other ‘isms’ helped to constitute the modern world and made pitiless and merciless rivals of the twentieth century church” (Many, M.E., The Modern Schism, p. 11).

This is the “problem” modern unbelief attempts to solve. Rejecting the person and message of Jesus (because of the miraculous nature of his birth, life, message, and resurrection), and dismissing the inspired record of the Apostles and Prophets (because the claim to plenary inspiration also conflicts with their faith), the modernist seeks to “rescue” a few of the general principles of religion to preserve the “essence of Christianity.” Actually, the modernistic apologist is a kind of “spiritual conservationist,” seeking to preserve a few of the “quaint” and naive gems of a dying religious culture, beaten back by the overpowering forces of man’s growing technology and superior intellect. The modernist view is reflected among (believe it or not) people who claim to be members of Christ’s Church.

Leaving the denominational world (but not going far) we can look to those who claim to have a relationship to Christ in His church, who declare heatedly that the “historical Jesus” is impossible to find because of the obscuring overlay of the “biblical Jesus.” In Mission Magazine, one brother, Warren Lewis writes, ” . . . at the verbal, literal, word-for-word level of the (Gospel) 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.” As to the resurrection, Brother Lewis believes there was one, but as to the record of that resurrection he says that the four-fold record is ” . . . a clashing, jarring jumble; many jangling tongues and contradictory stories.” (Lewis, Warren, “Let’s Look At The Text Again,” Mission, pp. 21-24). I seriously doubt that Lewis believes in the significance or import of the resurrection even though he would not debate the fact of it intellectually. John said that his record was written “that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name” (Jn. 20:31). One cannot reject the testimony of the Christ without rejecting the Christ. And one cannot reject the significance of the Christ without losing the “life through his name” that is extended.

One self-declared Christian even went so far as to array the Christ against His own word: “For all the importance of the Bible, it should not be the true focus of the Christian’s loyalty . . . those who would restore N.T. Christianity should not allow the Bible to compete with (Christ) for authority” (Hunter, “Restoration Theology, A Schoolmaster,” Mission, June, 1974). Obviously Brother Hunter has never read Matt. 7:24ff or Jn. 5 :24-39.

There can be no quarter given in opposing such an attitude towards God and His word. The scriptures are either what they claim to be, or they are nothing. Jesus must be what the word of God claims for him, or he is less than nothing-he is the arch-deceiver of mankind. In trying to remove from the Bible and the person of Jesus everything that could possibly be objected to in the name of man’s science, in trying to bribe off the enemy by those concessions which the enemy most desires, the modernist has abandoned what he set out to defend. Here, as in all of life, those things thought to be hardest to defend, are also the things most worth defending.

Jesus is the Sum

Who is this Jesus as described by God’s word? Jesus claimed himself to be Yahweh, the I AM, who spoke to Moses from the burning bush (cf. Jn. 8:56-58 and Ex. 3:2-6, 13, 14). Jesus was declared to be God, the Expression of Deity who came from eternity (Jn. 1:1-4, 14). The O.T. claimed the eternity and finality of Jesus. The scribes looked to Bethlehem of Judah for the Messiah “for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel . . .” (Matt. 2:5,6). But the Jews did not read the whole text, for the passage in Micah 5:2 goes on to say, “whose goings forth have been from old, from everlasting.” The “Biblical Jesus” not only accepted such honor, but demanded to be honored as God (Jn. 5:23). Jesus made no apology for claiming to be Jehovah, the Creator of the Universe, the Origin of all life, the Beginning and the End, with the power of life and death in his word.

To support his claim he raised people from the dead, fed multitudes with a few fragments of food from a child’s lunch, cured the incurable, made whole the helplessly cripple, stilled the wind and the sea, prophesied of the future and it came to pass, and made claims for himself that could only be made by God-or a totally deceived fool.

Man, in his strutting ignorance would lay aside plain evidence to satisfy his own appetite for self-justification. The modernist would have us leave off the scriptures when we consider Christ. But, what testimony is there of the Son of God apart from the record? It is asking the judge to hear a case with no witnesses, evidence, or defense, only the criticism and condemnation of the prosecutor. Our adversary would delight in such an arrangement. He does not wish to meet the Lord in combat, but would rather avoid him by defining him away into obscurity. He would make him a shadowy, unknowable figure who died somewhere in history and whose significance is as demonstrable as Santa Claus or the Tooth fairy.

Historically, Jesus is classed by the modernist alongside “other” religious “symbols” like Muhammed or Confucious, in a non-redemptive role as “great teacher.” But, Jesus was not a “great-teacher” unless he was “The Great Teacher.” Muhammed never claimed to be anything but a “prophet.” Hardly did he claim to be the Son of God, and certainly not the Messiah of all mankind, who alone had the power to forgive sin and grant mercy instead of judgment. The Oriental philosophers (then as well as today) had some unusual and novel views regarding the spirit of man, but none ever claimed to be the “way” of reconciling man to God in justification. The best philosophies that men have been able to compile as to man’s place in time, space, matter, and intellect have yet to find any substance or application for man when it comes to the ultimate question of Life: What happens after death? Only the Christ has given us the answer to that question, and sealed his promise with his own resurrection. “I am the resurrection and the life: He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die: Believest thou this ” (Jn. 11:25, 26).

This is the question facing all men-it is a question answered “no” by the Modernist. It is a question answered “no” by all who do not “continue in my word” (Jn. 8:31). Where does one go after he has rejected the Son of God and the testimony of the Son? “There remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries . . .It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb. 10:27, 31). Jesus is the last word, the “amen” to every promise God has given us. The devil knows this, and will combat that finality till the day he is cast into the pit with all those he has deceived. Beward brethren, “There is salvation in none other name under heaven.”

Truth Magazine XXI: 41, pp. 652-653
October 20, 1977

By Ron Halbrook

This study concerns what we call church history. It cannot be a textual study of scripture by the very nature of the case. The Bible never recorded or envisioned what men call “ecumenical councils.” They are not found in the First Century Church. There is no command for them, no approved precedent, no necessary implication. They are the creation of men under the influence of a working of error, the spirit of lawlessness.

The theory behind ecumenical councils has always drawn on Acts 15, the so-called Jerusalem council. But the “Jerusalem council” was not a representative council called by “representative men.” It did not meet to vote any doctrine in or out of existence. When men came from Jerusalem leaving the impression that inspired men there approved of their false teachings, Paul and Barnabas left Antioch for Jerusalem. While it is true the Antioch brethren “determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question,” it is also true and of utmost importance that Paul later explained, “I went up by revelation” (Acts 15:2; Gal. 2:2).

While free discussion and open study was allowed at Jerusalem, none of this had a bearing on Paul or any other inspired man in so far as “helping” determine what he believed about the matters at issue. Paul went, not to find out what he should believe and preach, but to communicate “unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles” (Gal. 2:2). What he preached was exactly what Peter and the other inspired men preached; this was publicly demonstrated (Gal. 2:6-9). The inspired men preached exactly what the Holy Spirit directed, before and after the Jerusalem meeting. The false teachers were debated and defeated by the power of truth, not by a vote of 125 yeas and 124 nays (Acts 15:6-21; Gal. 2:3-5).

Letters were written from Jerusalem by the direction of the Holy Spirit-the first inspired letters we know anything about during the First Century. The letters carried the stamp of divine inspiration, not of human wisdom: “And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting …. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you . . . these necessary things . . . .” (Acts 15:23-31).

Councils never did determine divine truth in the first place. It was determined from eternity in God Himself. Men, vessels of clay, were entrusted with the riches of divine truth, which they spoke under miraculous guidance of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:13). But furthermore, that truth was revealed and declared in all its fulness in the First Century, according to the promise of Christ (Jn. 16:13; 1 Cor. 13:8-10; Jas. 1:25). Therefore no council after the First Century could have any new truth to offer. When bishops of the Second and Third Centuries began meeting in local areas and synods, they often repeated this formula, “It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us . . . .” But the Holy Spirit did not call these councils nor speak through them. The phrase was pirated! When men made such claims (and do so today), it was the working of Satan with all deception of unrighteousness. It is iniquity. There is not a particle of justification for it in the law of Christ. “Every one who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness” (1 Jn. 3:4).

If it be claimed that such councils met simply for the mutual edification of those who gathered, the deception is revealed by the council’s own constant claims, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit . . . .” They claimed divine authority for their deliberations and decrees; they did not apologize for their boldness then, as some of their self-appointed apologists may do today.

Why study all this if it is unauthorized by God’s Word? (1) To see the fulfillment of Bible prophecy, such as 2 Thess. 2, 1 Tim. 4, and 2 Tim. 4. (2) To better understand the spirit of lawlessness-its progressive nature, its destructive nature, its pride, its methods, its unlimited claims when it has its way, etc. This will help us recognize and oppose such a spirit. It should make us appreciate the wisdom and love of God’s warnings. (3) To gain insight into a traditional approach to unity that has been here many centuries and is still current. (4) The reader will discover many other uses of such historical study, according to his own interests and needs. Man is a creature of history and of interest in history.

The term ecumenical means universal or general; it strongly suggests unity. Ecumenical councils are universal councils, those which represent the universality and oneness of the church . . . supposedly. Some historians would include councils we omit, and omit some we include. Our study does not pretend to be exhaustive, but will try to be complete enough to give the reader solid information and valid impressions about four different periods in the development of councils. In the next few lessons we will view the “First Ecumenical Councils (300-900 A.D.),” then “Medieval Councils of the Western Church (1000-1300 A.D.),” next “Renaissance Councils (1400-1520),” and finally “Reformation-Age Councils (1521- ).”

The source materials we have used for the most part represent three divergent points of view: (1) a Restoration view by John F. Rowe, A History of Reformatory Movements, 9th ed. (Reprint at Rosemead, California: Old Paths Book Club, 1957): (2) a Roman Catholic view by Francis Dvornik, The Ecumenical Councils (New York: Hawthorn Books Publ., 1961); (3) and a Protestant view by Ruth Rouse and Stephen Charles Neill (eds.), A History of the Ecumenical Movement 1517-1948, 2nd ed., being Vol. I of A History of the Ecumenical Movement (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1967) along with the companion volume by Harold E. Fey (ed.), The Ecumenical Advance 1948-1968, being Vol. II of A History of the Ecumenical Movement (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1970). For convenience when we wish to indicate a source, we shall simply give the author and page number.

Since the councils represent an effort at unity, we shall try to indicate what new tools, ideas, or concepts emerge in each period of the council’s development.

First Ecumenical Councils (300-900 A.D.)

Major Contribution or Characteristic in Approach to Unity: In discussing the rise of the episcopate as an office developed after the New Testament period, William Ramsay said, “The Imperial idea was in the air” (W.M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire Before A.D. 170, p. 367). It was still in the air, in people’s thinking on the subject of unity, in the years from 300 to 900 A.D. The Church accommodated itself to the guidance of the emperors. They were in effect priest-emperors who saw themselves as the guardians of Church faith and unity, or who assumed the priest-emperor role for political reasons. They pursued unity by adapting Roman legislative procedures to the needs of general councils of bishops. Lesser synods of bishops had already been utilizing such procedures. The letters of Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, reveal that the

“gatherings of bishops gradually modeled themselves on the rules under which the sessions of the Roman Senate was held.

The presiding bishop assumed the role of the Emperor or of his representative in the Senate. He used the same words for the convocation of the Council as were used in the imperial summons for the meeting of the Senate; and the conduct of debate, the interrogations of the bishops, and their responses also imitated the procedure of the Senate . . . . There was nothing unusual in this development. The meetings of the local senates or municipal councils in the provincial capitals were also modeled on the procedure followed by the Roman Senate, and this procedure was thus familiar to the bishops, who were Roman citizens” (Dvornik, p. 10).

When Emperor Constantine called the Nicean Council of 325, he

“convoked the bishops to the Council as he used to summon the senators to their meetings. The bishops obtained the senatorial privilege of traveling at public expense and using the official stage post, which was wen organized in the Roman Empire. As in the Senate, the problems to be decided were first debated by the most prominent bishops and the Emperor, in private meetings . . .

. . . “The Emperor himself presided over sessions of the Council. In the place of the statue of Victory, which stood In the front of the presidential tribune in the Roman Senate, the Bible was placed between the bishops and the Emperor. As in the Senate, the Emperor explained why he had convoked the Council and the subject the bishops had to discuss before making their definition. Then followed the individual Interrogation of the bishops, who made known their views” (Dvornik, pp. 14-15).

The age of Nicaea was characterized “by endless division” and “by endless efforts for the restoration of unity.” Meetings, writings, and compromises were utilized in search of successful methods. “But above all others, the means by which the Church in the Roman Empire sought to recover its own lost unity was the Ecumenical Council”-“an invention not of the Church but of the State …. The Council was a Council of the Church, but it was also the Emperor’s Council” (Rouse and Neill, p. 11).

Thus, between 300 and 900 A.D., unity was sought through general councils of bishops convened by the emperors of the civil empire. The role of the Roman bishop, or pope, grew more important in the latter half of this period; but the emperor was supreme over Church and State. Seven early councils are now considered ecumenical, i.e. representative of the church universal at work.

Council of Nicaea, 325

This council announced, in opposition to the Arians, that the relation of the Father to the Son is homoousios (consubstantial; same substance, nature, essence). It was decided that “Easter” should always be kept on a Sunday. The development of Church organization in keeping with the civil divisions of the Empire was approved. Other decisions were made and the Nicene Creed issued. Emperor Constantine called and presided at this council; he said, “For whatever is decided in the holy councils of the bishops must be attributed to the divine will” (Dvornik, p. 17).

Council of Constantinople, 381

The semi-Arians would concede only that the Father and the Son were homoiousios (similar in nature). Constantius, son of Constantine, called several synods of bishops to promote semi-Arianism, including Antioch in 341, Sardica in 343, Sirmium in 351, Arles in 353, Milan in 355, Sirmium again in 357 and again in 358, Rimini in 359, and Seleucia in 359. To further confuse things, Pope (the title is Dvornik’s) Julius I raised the question of what really validates a council’s decisions. This is all mixed up with the Arian controversy, but Julius did not think the Emperor’s calling a council necessarily validated its decisions. He argued that synodal decisions are not “general and binding” unless recognized by “the whole Church” (Dvornik, p. 19). As the Arian struggle continued, discussion on the nature of the Holy Spirit arose.

Finally, Emperor Theodosius the Great convoked the Council of Constantinople in 381 to try to create some order in all the confusion and continued division. The main results were a decision affirming the divine nature of the Holy Spirit and one recognizing the primacy of the church at Rome in certain matters.

Council of Ephesus, 431

Emperor Theodosius II called this council. The main doctrinal concern was in declaring the union of the divine and human natures in Christ, which had become another point of controversy and speculation. In terms of church centers of power, which were becoming more and more important, this council was involved in a struggle between the school of Antioch and the school of Alexandria; the Emperor in Constantinople tried to effect mediation.

The Council of Ephesus in 449 must be included here, though it is slighted as the “Robber Synod” because the heretical Monophysites controlled it. The Patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscorus, used “the great resources of his patriarchate” to get Emperor Theodosius II to call this council (Dvornik, p. 26). The council declared that the divine nature of Christ was absorbed by the human nature; therefore, there was just ONE nature (MONOphysite view). It is said that Dioscorus not only used unscrupulous means to have the council called, but that he also utilized fanatical supporters and imperial police to terrorize the assembly.

Council of Chalcedon, 451

Roman bishop Leo I got Emperor Marcian to convene the Council of Chalcedon. It affirmed that there were two natures in the one man Jesus Christ, thus denying the Monophysite position. Emperor Marcian was openly acclaimed as “Priest-emperor” and the power or position of Constantinople in the church was more fully acknowledged. Later, Emperor Zeno (474-91) issued a creed compromising with the Monophysites. This Henoticon or “Band of Union” was declared imperial law. “Pope” Felix III declared the “Band of Union” invalid, urging the decision at Chalcedon as the basis of unity.

Council of Constantinople, 553

Emperor Justinian condemned certain writings as a concession to irate Egyptian Monophysites. But the bishops insisted he should not issue religious edicts without conferring with them. So a council was called, which in turn simply confirmed the action Justinian had already taken.

Council of Constantinople, 680

So little was settled by these councils that every effort to put out one fire seemed to start a dozen more. The Monophysite controversy continued and new efforts were made to settle it. For instance, Patriarch Sergius persuaded Pope Honorius to issue a compromise creed, Ekthesis, stating Christ had only one will (Monothelite view). This patch did not hold long; more controversy between succeeding popes, emperors, and patriarchs followed. Finally, Emperor Constantine IV called the council of Constantinople in 680 to pull the feuding empire back together. The council condemned the Monothelite compromise.

The Council of Constantinople in 754 must be noted here, though certain parties certainly will not “recognize” it is ecumenical! In 726, Emperor Leo III issued an edict banning images (icons) as equivalent to idols. This is called the iconoclast view. The Council of Constantinople in 754 not only confirmed the Emperor’s decree, but also excommunicated the anti-iconoclasts.

Council of Nicaea, 787

The iconoclast issue remained unsettled for many years, and finally Empress Irene got the support of the Patriarch and the consent of the Pope to call a council “that I may know what the Lord will say unto me more” (to borrow Balaam’s words to Balak’s messengers in Num. 22:19). The party that lost out in a council could always bide its time, increase its influence, and have another council called to see “what the Lord will say . . . more!” The Council of Nicaea in 787 reversed the position of the Council of Constantinople of 754. Indeed, the Lord did have more to say.

Still the iconoclast debate continued for another fifty years. Charlemagne in the West and various emperors in the East maintained their iconoclast views. “Image worship” was generally restored in 842-3 by Empress Theodora. “The defeat of iconoclasm promoted the production of icons, representations of Christ and his Saints, and these became a characteristic feature of Byzantine art” (Dvornik, p. 39).

At least two more important councils met before the year 900. Emperor Basil I called the Council of Constantinople of 869 in an effort to gain Roman support. The Emperor in Constantinople and the Pope in Rome were able to scratch one another’s backs. By means of this council, the Roman Pope cooperated with the Emperor in removing Photius as Patriarch of Constantinople. Basil gained Roman support; the Pope strengthened his primacy.

The Roman and Greek Churches differed socially, politically, and religiously on many issues; they were drifting further and further apart. Through the Council of Constantinople in 879, the Roman and Greek Churches agreed to a sort of unity in diversity, recognizing that neither was likely to succeed in dominating the other. (And apparently the Lord had more to say about poor Photius, for the council reinstated him!) Though this was called the “Council of Union,” it was the last Eastern synod to which the Roman Pope sent legates. The two Churches grew further. apart, especially when the Saxon King Otto I (962) restored “the Western Roman Empire.” He took control of both secular and spiritual affairs; obviously, his background differed from both the Roman and Greek.

Truth Magazine XXI: 41, pp. 649-652
October 20, 1977

By Bill Cavender

C. D. Plum was born on June 5, 1898 on a farm in the hills of Wirt County, West Virginia, a place he later referred to lovingly as “Starvation Point.” He died at home, 2503 Liberty St., Parkersburg, West Virginia, at 12:30 p.m., June 30, 1977, at age 79 years and 25 days.

He went through the eight grade of school, then attended State Normal Colleges at Elizabeth and Ripley, West Virginia, and began teaching school. While teaching, at age 19, he met and married one of his students, Goldie May Henderson, age 16. They loved each other and lived together in holiness and devotion to God and to each other for 60 years and 3 months. To them three children were born: Wilma, who became Mrs. Carl Parsons and who passed away Aug. 20, 1965; Russell D., now age 56, who is crippled due to illness in his youth and who lives at home with his mother; and Charles D., who passed away Aug. 7, 1976 at age 51, who was a faithful gospel preacher and the Chief of Police in Parkersburg at the time of his death.

Brother C. D. Plum is survived by his wife, by Russell, by one sister who is in a nursing home in California, and by five grandchildren and ten great-grandchildren. Sister Plum is 76 years of age, appears to be in good health, and for the more than three years of Brother Plum’s illness and the one and one-half years he was bedfast, she tenderly and lovingly cared for him day and night without complaint, assisted by her two sisters and by her excellent daughter-in-law, sister Lillian Plum. Sister Plum is of the old school of womanhood, a gracious, lovely, modest, godly woman, who loves the Lord, the church, her husband and children, and all that is good and true. She and Russell will continue to live at their home which they built in 1941. (All preachers ought to own a home of their own.) Cards and letters will reach sister Plum at her home address if any of our readers wish to write her, to thank her for what she, her husband, and family have meant to the Lord’s cause and kingdom for these many years.

Brother Plum was baptized during a gospel meeting in 1911, held by J. H. Pennell. “One little twelve year old boy was baptized,” it was remarked, but that boy gave sixty-six years to the Lord’s work, fifty-six of them in active gospel preaching. He went to embalming school in Cincinnati, Ohio, immediately after marriage but never worked as a mortician. He began preaching in Hundred, West Virginia and in 1918 moved to East Liverpool, Ohio. After preaching there, he did located work in Moundsville, West Virginia; .Wheeling, West Virginia (where he did extensive radio preaching); Lynn Street in Parkersburg; Belpre, Ohio; West Broad Street and Whitehall churches in Columbus, Ohio; and in Paden City, West Virginia. In 1964 they moved to Coraopolis, Pennsylvania to care for their daughter who was terminally ill. Brother Plum began holding meetings and preaching for churches within driving distance of Coraopolis when he was not in meetings. He continued to do this for the next ten years, the remainder of his preaching life. After their daughter’s death, they moved to their own home in Parkersburg in March, 1966. In his 56 years of preaching, he baptized hundreds of people, holding meetings in twenty states and Canada. He held six meetings in Port Arthur, and was scheduled to hold another for us when he became too ill to preach anymore. We then asked Brother Charles D. Plum to come in his father’s place for the meeting. He consented, but then became ill with cancer and passed away before the time agreed upon.

Brother Plum engaged in two religious debates, both with the Seventh-Day Adventists. He wrote several tracts and for many years was a regular staff writer for the Gospel Advocate. He spoke on college lectureships, especially at Freed-Hardeman College, and was well known as a personal friend to the notable preachers, elders and brethren of the twenties, thirties and early forties. But all this changed in the forties, after World War II. In the late forties and early fifties, when the Gospel Advocate became the foremost voice for institutionalism (human institutions being supported, maintained and subsidized from church treasuries) and centralized church cooperation (many churches working through a centralized, sponsoring-church arrangement, with a concentration of plans, funds and personnel under the oversight of a central eldership), Brother Plum opposed this unscriptural movement and wrote in opposition to these digressive, liberal practices and plans. The Advocate editor, Brother B. C. Goodpasture, ceased printing his articles, so Brother Plum resigned from the Advocate staff. He later remarked that the twenty-five dollars a month he received as a staff writer was greatly needed in those days, yet he could not take it to the peril of his soul. He was the first writer to quit the Advocate due to the paper’s liberalism. He contributed articles afterwards to several papers among faithful brethren, the Gospel Guardian and especially Truth Magazine being the main outlets for his views. His writing was ever like his preaching-true to God’s word, simple, understandable and appealing.

One of the great sadnesses of Brother Plum’s life was the condition to which the majority of churches of Christ in the Ohio Valley have come. This was home to him, the area and people that he loved best, and where most of his life’s work was done. He grieved at the digression of the churches in that area and at the fact that he was greatly ostracized by the very people he had helped the most in earlier years. The college begun and operated by liberal brethren in Parkersburg and the Ohio Valley has been and is a prime mover of digression throughout the entire area and Brother Plum ever looked upon it with disdain and sorrow. He had great sorrow of heart due to broken fellowship and friendships as digression gained more and more power and fewer brethren in his area arose to speak and stand against it as time went by. Especially keen was the loss of association with gospel preachers who had been bosom friends and fellow-laborers, men who had preached and proclaimed similar convictions as his own, but who would no longer preach and stand by their convictions when divisions began to occur. Brethren Fred E. Dennis and Tom Butterfield were extremely valued fellow-soldiers, yet their fellowship was lost when he stood for truth and they tacitly and quietly gave their influence to the digressive movement. They continued to hold the meetings for churches in the Ohio Valley, churches which were and are embracing more of error and becoming more denominational as time passed, while Brother Plum preached elsewhere and had to go further out into the countryside to weak and small churches to find places to preach. In his long illness they never contacted him in any way, never came to see him nor inquire of him. Brother Butterfield attended his funeral. Brother Plum often remarked that if he, Dennis and Butterfield could have stood together as one man in the truth during the crucial years of the fifties and sixties, they could have saved much of the cause of Christ in the Ohio Valley from digression.

In the nineteen years I knew Brother Plum well, I came to love and appreciate him as I have few other men. He stayed in our home in two meetings; I stayed in their home in Parkersburg during two meetings. We corresponded often. I will never forget the way he walked, his unusual speaking style and voice, his beautiful and perfectly-drawn blackboard diagrams, the scripture-filled sermons, his tenderness of heart and feelings. He was a deeply pious man, given much to prayer, Bible study and meditation. He always talked of the scriptures, the church, home and heaven. I never heard him discuss sports, politics, fishing, hunting, or gossip about anyone. He loved his family as much as any man I have ever known. Only to preach the gospel would he leave them, while gone he wrote them every day, and when a meeting was over he wanted to return home. Humble in spirit, reverent in demeanor, always moderate in his habits, very unassuming and quiet in disposition, thrifty with money, undemanding and simple in his needs, accurate and meticulous in his work, kind and gentle in manner, forgiving and without rancor toward any enemies, hopeful for the best in all things, believing in God’s will and providence in every facet of his life, he tried to live as much as possible at peace with all men, consistent with God’s will, and to live soberly, righteously and godly in this world.

His funeral was conducted in Parkersburg on July 5 by Brother Richard Greeson, preacher of the Marrtown Road church in Parkersburg, and by this writer. His mortal body was laid away to await the resurrection by the side of his son, Charles, in the Chapel of Peace Mausoleum, Sunset Gardens Cemetery, Parkersburg. May God continue to be with and bless Sister Plum, Russell, and this entire family as they serve Him, and may Brother Plum’s life, preaching and works be a continual blessing and influence in the lives of all of us who knew him.

Truth Magazine XXI: 41, pp. 647-649
October 20, 1977