Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

For several months now, I have been intending to write an article pertaining to the name of the Lord’s church. A number of articles have crossed my desk in which the writers have denied that the church has a name. I want our readers to see a sampling of these articles. These quotations are from the pens of young men who are presently preaching for conservative congregations.

“A brother in the Lord recently wrote an article on `The Identity of the Church’ an excerpt of which appears below: . . In this article, this brother states that one Identifying mark of the New Testament church is its designation.’ In stating this my brother undoubtedly Is sincere. I know that he is a man of integrity. However, I disagree with his belief that the Lord’s churches have a name (or several names for that matter). To state that `other names are attached to the church’ (as our brother does) Is to beg the question. I have learned, in discussing this subject with other saints, that most brethren assume that Jesus has given His churches several names and that it is up to each local church to decide which name its wants to go by. I deny that the Lord has given His churches any name whatsoever.”(1)

“Some are no doubt disturbed that we don’t have the `name of the church’ on the bulletin somewhere. But that’s just the point – does the church actually have a `name’? . . . Searching the Scriptures I find no warrant for lifting out any particular designation and elevating it to the status of `namehood.’ All this stuff about the `right name’ is a throwback, not to the first century, but to the Reformation era of Church History when men began to label their assemblies after the doctrines and practices of the theologise they followed. The Items in the New Testament that we call `names’ are nothing more than descriptive terms which identify a particular relationship between God and His people. It would have been s perplexed apostle who would have been asked, `What is the name of the church?'”(2)

“1. I have learned that Churches of Christ are quickly evolving toward denominational status. It is ironic that the `restoration movement’ (which many credit with establishing the `New Testament Church’ in the U.S.) which started as a plea centered in Jesus and a return to the Bible as sole authority has k crystallized into a sectarian consciousness which finds greater security in being in `the right church’ than in being in Christ Jesus. All of this is very subtle and unarticulated perhaps, but ultimately results in the same kind of denominational outlook that those venerated `restorers’ opposed so vigorously. `Our’ preoccupation with names, `identifying marks,’ unwritten creeds, and the like clearly take away the emphasis from Jesus as Head of the church, and the Bible as sole authority.”(3)

In a satirical article entitled, “Diary of a Church Building,” Brother Bruce Edwards, Jr. continued,

“The deacons put up the new neon sign today that lets all the townspeople know `who’ we are. They certainly aren’t a denomination! I hear that echoed within my auditorium often enough. Strange though. All the other church buildings in town have their `sages’ out front too, letting everyone know `who’ they are as well. I sometimes wonder whether those that drive by me think that the church that meets here is any more `distinctive’ than the other ones in town.”(4)

Some ten years ago, Ron Durham present editor of Mission, stated the same position regarding the name of the church as is being presently sated by some among us; he wrote,

“With but an isolated exception or two, we not only `speak the same thing’-we even put the same wording on our stationery and sign boards. This becomes wrong only when the exclusive use of the terns gives a denominational definition to the church . . . . Surely, when congregations of that one body adopt a singular public name exclusive of all others, the first step to denominating the church-in the wrong sense-has bees taken.”(5)

The statement of this position is not the exclusive property of a group of young preachers among us as the following citations from respected men who hold to Bible authority indicates:

“Mature Christians understand that the church does not have a name. It does indeed belong to Christ (Matt. 16:18) and local churches were called churches of Christ (Rom. 16:16). It is also the church of the Lord (Acts 20:281, sari of God (1 Cor. 1:2), is an assembly of firstborn ones (Heb. 12:231, and bears other distinctive marks of Identification. What the church is called simply depends on the relationship In which one views it.”(6)

“Brethren condemn sectarian names which distinguish the denominational bodies and then `denominate’ the church by exalting a descriptive phrase so that it becomes the official (or unofficial) nomenclature for the church. Many seem to be persuaded that the name of God’s people is `The Church of Christ.’ The truth of the matter is, the only name for God’s people is Christian (Acts 11:26).”(7)

With these quotations before us, let us consider whether or not the church has a name or names.

What Is A Name?

Believing that a proposition properly defined is half argued, let me give some attention to the definition of “name.” Beside the word “name.” when used as a noun, Webster listed seven definitions of which the first two are pertinent to our discussion; they are as follows:

“1. a word or phrase by which a person, thing, or class of things is known, called, or spoken to or of; an appellation; a title. ” 2. a word or words expressing some quality considered characteristic or descriptive of a person or thing.”

Most of the confusion relating to our subject centers around the accurate definition of the word “name.” Those who protest that the church has no name assert that phrases such as “church of Christ,” “church of God,” etc. are “descriptive terms” rather than “names.” However, if a person will carefully consider the second definition of “name,” he will see that a “descriptive term” is a “name”! Hence, the confusion is caused by giving to the word “name” the exclusive definition of “proper name” (the name of a particular person, place or thing). This constitutes an unjustified limiting of the definition of the word “name.” Actually any noun is the “name” of a person, place or thing. Hence, if any noun is used to describe God’s people, God’s people are named.

The distinction supposed to exist between a “descriptive term” and a “name” is neither grammatical nor scriptural. (Notice that I did not deny that a distinction exists between a proper name and .a descriptive title.) The descriptive term “son” was called a “name” (onoma) in Heb. 1:4,5. Hence, those who have tried to distinguish. descriptive terms and names have made much ado over nothing. If what they are trying to distinguish are descriptive terms and proper names, then they should say so.

Thus, in the consideration of whether or not the church is named, let us observe that I have no obligation to prove that the church has one, exclusive, proper name in order for it to be considered to be named; it can be “named” by the usage of descriptive terms.

The Word “Church” As A Name

One of the most obvious points to be observed in connection with our subject is that the word “church” itself is a name! The word “church” is persistently applied to groups of Christians; it is a name used by inspired writers to designate a collectivity of Christians. The word “church,” with its attending prepositional phrases (of God, of Christ, etc.), is used in such a way as it might be properly called a “name.” For example, when Paul wrote his letter to the Corinthians, he addressed it to “the church of God which is at Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2). In the city of Corinth, there were a number of religious collectivities such as the synagogue of the Jews, the Temple of Aphrodite, and others. The appellative “church of God” designated to whom the letter was addressed; it was a “name” which distinguished the recipients of the letter from all other people in Corinth.

Again in 1 Cor. 10:32, Paul wrote, “Give no offence either to Jews or Greeks or the church of God.” No one would deny that “Jews” and “Greeks” are “names” of classes of people. However, “church of God” is placed beside these words in a parallel construction; if “Jews” and “Greeks” can be properly designated as names, then so can the phrase “church of God.” The word “church” designated a group of people just as certainly as did “Jews” and “Greeks.” It named them. And, by today’s rules of grammars, it could probably be called a proper name. The word church itself is a name! Those who protest that the church does not have a name must face up to the fact that the word “church” is a name!

Abuses of the Name

For as long as I can remember, brethren have been teaching about abuses associated with the name of the church. Preachers have been informing members that there is no one exclusive name by which the church is called. Yet, we should not allow abuses of an item to cause us to reject it, if it is scriptural in itself. The fact that the Mormons call their young men “elders” does not stop us from calling those men who fill the qualifications of 1 Tim. 3 “elders.” The fact that the world uses the word “church” in an unscriptural sense has not yet caused anyone to throw it out of his vocabulary. Hence, I do not believe that just because the world views us in a certain way because we uniformly use the term “church of Christ” is justification for ceasing to use that term anymore than their misconceptions concerning baptism should cause us to quit using the term “baptism.” Rather, it simply means that we must teach the world the proper meaning of these words. The fact that several are rising to protest the scriptural usage of a scriptural phrase is no reason to abandon its usage. The right to choose what goes on the sign in front of the building, the stationery, advertisements, etc. belongs to the local church. So long as it chooses a Bible name, no man has the right to criticize them. To do so is to legislate where God has not legislated.

While we are discussing abuses related to names, perhaps we should consider the virtues of wearing a multiplicity of names. Will the world judge us to be less denominational if we wear a variety of names? I think not! The Christian Churches have already tried that experiment. Their groups are called “Disciples of Christ,” “Christian Church,” and “Church of Christ.” Yet, who would assert that the wearing of this variety of names has kept them from being considered a denomination in the eyes of the general public? The alternative of each congregation wearing a different name has absolutely no advantage over a uniform name; it would not prevent the tendency of the world, or of some ignorant brethren, to consider the church a denomination.

Does insisting upon the church wearing “the right name” take away from Christ as Brother Bruce Edwards, Jr. has charged. He said, ” ‘Our’ preoccupation with names, ‘identifying marks,’ unwritten creeds, and the like clearly take away the emphasis from Jesus as Head of the church (note his usage of “church” as a name for God’s people-MW) and the Bible as sole authority.” Is this so? I think not! The insistence upon a scriptural name emphasizes that Jesus’ word must govern even the choice of the name in front of the building. How can one preach the necessity of having a Bible name without exalting the authority of Christ which rests in His word? Bruce’s charge is not proven; it is an unfounded assertion, nothing more!

Consistency

Although there are several who are writing extensively on the subject of the name of the church in which they are saying that the church has no name, everyone of the churches for which these men preach still identify themselves as a “church of Christ.” It seems to me that these men should at least clean up their own backyard before they set out to reform the brotherhood. If the wearing of a name is wrong, should not these men begin their work by persuading the congregation with which they work to straighten up? Should not they lead the way by showing us what we can scripturally use in advertising our meetings, location and time of services, and on our publications without being guilty of latching on to one name to the exclusion of all others? Brother Bruce Edwards made such an attempt on his bulletin for a short period of time, although I notice that for some reason he has already reverted to using the word “church” instead of “Christians.” Bruce, is there any scriptural difference in saying, “Published by the church that meets at . . . .” and “Published by the church of Christ that meets at . . . .”? Would we be better off to follow your example? If all of us did as you do would we be just as guilty of making “church” an official name? Those who are making much ado about the name issue need to face up to the fact that they have not yet suggested a reasonable, workable alternative which will avoid the pitfalls which presently exist with reference to a uniform name!

Conclusion

In conclusion, let me state that I can see nothing unscriptural or anti-scriptural in the churches wearing a uniform name. However, we must be careful to teach that this is not the only, exclusive name given to God’ people. We must teach the members that the prop name is not the only identifying mark of the Lord church and that is not more, or less, important then an other identifying mark. I think that the fact that ever preacher with whom I have ever had any acquaintanc has been doing that for years is worthy of notice. Hence, some are making much ado about nothing. I at wondering why such a fuss is being made.

Although I cannot be a judge of the motives of the men who are writing about the name of the church, I can judge the fruits of their works. A small, struggling church in the South came under the influence of one who makes a big to-do over the name. As a result, the sign in front of the building was changed from “Church of Christ” to “Christ’s Church.” (Notice how much more scriptural is the latter than the former!) Shortly thereafter, some liberal brethren and members of a local Christian Church joined hands to begin a church; they called it “Christ’s Church.” Needless to say the small struggling church had to change its sign again. (Wonder what the people in their neighborhood thought of the indecision about what to call themselves?) The preacher who pushed the change in names continued to harangue about the sectarianism and traditionalism in the church of Christ to such an extent that tension between the congregation and other local congregations were created. The young preacher who was so vehement over the name has become more and more disillusioned because he cannot arouse brethren from their “lethargy” and “traditionalism” with reference to the name. He

recently visited the services of a Pentecostal group and commented something to this effect: “I got more good out of this than anywhere I’ve been.” Needless to say the family and friends of this young man are much concerned about his spiritual future.

The creating of needless confusion over matters of judgment is sinful. This is the fruit of the labors of those the who are making much ado about the name. Unless these men are willing to teach that our current practice will send men to Hell, they need to shut up. Why create needless confusion over matters of judgment?

Truth Magazine XXI: 8, pp. 115-118
February 24, 1977

By Larry Ray Hafley

Several articles of late have spoken of commitment to Christ. No informed Christian denies the need, but while contending for commitment to Christ, some decry “church of Christ theology in the process of conversion.” It is charged that “Neo-Phariseeism” is “in the church of Christ today.” If these allegations be true, they are indeed abominations to be abhorred. Whence cometh this series of complaints? Are they valid? If there is Phariseeism and ecclesiastical gospelism, it must be stopped. However, let none confuse urgings to the New Testament order with creedal, institutional salvation.

We are told that “commitment is to a Person,” not to a series of conditions to be obeyed. That is only partly correct. We ought to commit ourselves unto Christ (2 Tim. 1:12; 1 Pet. 4:19). Our commitment initially comes through obedience to a series of conditions (Heb. 5:8, 9; Matt. 7:21; Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38). Last year, in debate with a Primitive Baptist, I affirmed, “The Scriptures teach that Christ died for all the sinful race of Adam and that He offers the remission of alien sins to all alike through the gospel conditions of faith, repentance, confession, and baptism.” Is there a genuine, New Testament Christian who could not make, the same affirmation? Yes, commitment is unto Christ, but that commitment is not made until we are obedient “unto a series of conditions” that have been prescribed in the word of God.

Further, we are reminded that the early, evincing evangelists preached “commitment to a Person,” that they did not emphasize the church as a “legally identifiable body.” In Acts 8:5, Philip “preached Christ unto them.” What did it mean to preach Christ? It meant that he preached “the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 8:12). I wonder if the things concerning the kingdom of God had anything to do with the church? I wonder if the things concerning the name of Jesus Christ had anything to do with repentance and baptism (Lk. 24:47; Acts 2:38)? The Thessalonians in like manner were called by the gospel in order to obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 These. 2:14). They were turned by the word of God; that is, they were converted from idols to serve the living and true God, as opposed to the dead and false idols they formerly served (1 These. 1:9; 2:13). In truth, that is commitment to a person. Note, also, however, that they were “called . . . . unto his kingdom and glory.” They were called unto the church, the realm of the redeemed (1 These. 2:12). This is the very same thing as being “called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor. 1:9). When men are called to the kingdom and glory of Christ, they are called to Christ. So, please spare me these sermons about “commitment to a Person,” rather than to the Church. The church is His body (Col. 1:24). When one is called unto it, he is called unto and into Christ.

In Acts 11:19, “a great number believed and turned to the Lord.” In Acts 18:8, the very same thing occurred, except this time it is said, “many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized.” Those two statements are synonymous, interchangeable-they say the same thing in essence. When Barnabas saw the believers, it is said that “he saw the grace of God.” That is, he saw the effects of God’s grace. A host had been converted. They had “believed and turned to the Lord.” We may call that “commitment to a Person.” But they had, upon hearing the gospel, believed and been baptized. It is the same thing. Do not lecture to me about distinctions without a difference.

Philip preached Christ to the Ethiopian treasurer. That would qualify as preaching “commitment to a Person,” I suppose. I prefer to call it what Luke called it. At any rate, after hearing comment concerning “commitment to a Person,” the treasurer wanted to be baptized. Once again, commitment to a Person involves and includes commands to be obeyed (Acts 8:35, 36). If there is a gospel preacher who does not believe this, he ought to be committed.

Truth Magazine XXI: 8, p. 114
February 24, 1977

By Ronny Milliner

While we are singing “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” we are also to be “teaching and admonishing one another” (Col. 3:16). We are to worship God in spirit and in truth (Jn. 4:24). Therefore it would be wrong for us to sing words that expressed a false idea. Indeed, if we engaged in such we would surely be as guilty of false teaching as if we had gotten up in the pulpit and taught the same thing.

Many of our songs have been written by those in denominational error. It would thus be very easy for some of their false beliefs to be expressed in the songs they write. We need to be on guard and to carefully examine all that we sing lest we find ourselves singing that which we believe to be contrary to God’s word.

I would like to give the reader’s four examples of such songs found in Sacred Selections for the Church for their consideration.

“Searching for a Savior”

Song number 128, entitled “What A Savior,” expresses in verse one, “They searched thru heaven and found a Savior To save a poor lost soul like me.” I have difficulty harmonizing this thought of a searching party roaming through heaven trying to find a Savior with the Biblical teaching on God’s eternal purpose. Paul connects the eternal purpose of God and Christ in Eph. 3:10-11. Peter speaks of Christ as the sacrificial lamb being “foreordained before the foundation of the world.” No, there was no searching for a Savior. God knew before the world was created that it would take the blood of His only begotten Son to take away the sins of men.

“Christ’s Righteousness Alone”

Much has been written, and rightly so, regarding the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. This erroneous teaching is found in number 120, “The Solid Rock” written by the Baptist preacher, Edward Mote. The words of verse four are, “When He shall come with trumpet sound, O may I then in Him be found; dressed in his righteousness alone (emphasis mine-RM), Faultless to stand before the throne.” Our sins are not covered by a “make believe” pretense by God imputing Christ’s righteousness to us. They are forgiven as we repent, confess them, and ask God’s forgiveness (Ac. 8:22-24; 1 Jn. 1:9; Jas. 5:16). We will be judged by our righteousness. We will be judged by the deeds we have done in OUR bodies (2 Cor. 5:10).

“Child’s Sin”

I believe another Calvinistic song is to be found in the old familiar “Jesus Loves Me” ( # 274-a). Usually this song is taught to and sung by very small children. Yet in verse two we find the words, “He (Jesus) will wash away my sin, Let His little child come in.” Now what sin does a little child have? Is it the inherited sin of Adam? Should we baptize those to whom we teach this song so that this “sin” might be forgiven? The imputation of Adam’s sin is just as false as the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (see for example Ezek. 18:19-20).

“Imminent Return of Christ”

Many of our day, as true in time past, are crying of the imminent return of Christ. Some say it will happen “in this generation.” Others talk about it being “right around the corner.” Some have even set dates as to when Jesus will return. We have pointed out the error in this teaching by showing that we do not know when Christ will return. Yet would we not be guilty of the same thing by singing, “It won’t be very long till Jesus shall descend.” (“It Won’t Be Very Long- #343)? How is it that we know that “it won’t be very long?” Jesus said, “Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.” (Matt. 25:13). He could come soon or it could be another 1900 years. We simply do not know.

Conclusion

Again, let us examine the words that we sing and the thoughts we express so we may know they are in harmony with the teaching of God. Let us not be guilty of singing false doctrine, but rather be “teaching and admonishing one another is psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord” (Col. 3:16).

Truth Magazine XXI: 7, p. 109
February 17, 1977

By Voyd N. Ballard

Satire is defined as the “use of sarcasm or irony to attack or ridicule a habit, idea, custom etc.” Anonymity is the “state of being anonymous” which is “of unknown or unacknowledged authorship.” Truth is defined by the dictionary as “that which is true”, “Conformity with fact or reality.” It is defined by Cruden as “opposed to hypocrisy, dissimulation or formality (Heb. 10:22)”, and by the Bible as, “He that speaketh truth showeth forth righteousness: but a false witness deceit” (Prov. 12:17). Jesus says, “the truth shall make you free” (Jn. 8:32) and the Holy Spirit through Paul admonishes us that we should, “put away lying-speak every man truth with his neighbor: for we are members one of another” (Eph. 4:25). Truth has nothing to be ashamed of and those who speak the truth on any subject have no reason to desire that their writing or speaking be of “unacknowledged authorship.”

A good deal has been said lately about satire in an attempt to justify lying and false witnessing against the truth on such subjects as “grace only”, “Faith only”, “fellowshipping error” and hobnobbing around with false teachers. This so called “satire” has been used against the truth and against those sound and faithful men of God who are teaching this truth and standing firm against false teachers and compromisers. Some of these fellows who are still trying to deceive sound churches into believing that they are sound gospel preachers are now writing for Christian Church publications, institutional papers, and bulletins, (for, not against) appearing as “featured speakers” in “Youth Forum” “Unity Campaign”, “Special Youth Meeting” conglomerations right along with Ketcherside, Garrett, Ed Fudge and others, who are leading many of God’s people into denominational error by opening the flood gates of error to every denominational doctrine the devil has ever invented.

Those who have thus used “satire” have succeeded in convincing some that they were “just having a little fun” and indeed some have said they were “overly impressed with the purely human element of these satirists.” I personally fail to be impressed by any form of “satire” against Truth, and especially when those engaged in such insist on remaining “anonymous.” This “anonymity” thing sounds more like cowardice to me. Whoever heard of sound men of God wanting to have “a little fun” using satire against truth? The things being taught in Truth Magazine are the Truth, the “Whole counsel of God” setting forth the truth of God against the false doctrines of Calvinism, institutionalism, and the old denominationalism plea that we should fellowship these doctrines and their sympathizers. Those responsible for such pleas know that they cannot meet and overcome the Truth of God as applied against these false doctrines. They know that,

“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God” (2 John 9). Yet, they want to fellowship these transgressors, so under the guise of satire they make fun of the Truth they cannot meet. They seem to think this is something “new and wonderful.” However, it is neither “new” nor “wonderful.” This thing is as old as denominationalism itself. This is the very tactic employed by every denominational preacher I have ever debated. If you cannot meet the truth of an argument, make fun of it, ridicule it, and belittle the man who is upholding _the Truth. The only difference I can see is that most k denominational preachers have had the courage to identify themselves when using “satire” against Truth instead of hiding behind “anonymity.” Also, they are much more expert in the use of such “satire” than are some of these fellows who think they are so “thoroughly informed” and have such “adequate ability.” I suggest to all who are so “overly impressed with the purely human element” of these modern “satirists” that they examine the skill and cunning of such men as Ben M. Bogard, D. N. Jackson and other denominational debaters in their use of “satire.” These men, and other false teachers of their caliber, were really “experts” in ridiculing and making “fun of the truth.” Some of these fellows who seem to think they are so “thoroughly informed” along these lines could learn a lot more about “satire” and how to use it against the truth if they will study the writings and debates of these denominational debaters than they now know. They will also learn that these men (while just as wrong as the modern false teacher) did have the courage to identify themselves. I cannot buy the idea that anonymity is ever justified when used to reply to a religious teaching. It sounds more like cowardice to me! If a man believes any religious teaching is wrong he has the right (and obligation) to reply to it, but I fail to understand why he would want to hide behind “anonymity.” Why would any man who believes he has the truth, and who believes he is exposing false teachings, practices and attitudes want to, remain anonymous even if he is using satire against these teachings, practices and attitudes?

No one denies that satire is sometimes used in the Bible. However, I am willing to affirm that no inspired writer ever used it without first identifying himself, and then proving that the teaching or practice to which he applied satire was false! Inspired men of God were not spiritual cowards hiding behind “anonymity.” Elijah was not afraid to stand boldly against the false gods of Baal and their false teachings and practices. Can you for one moment imagine Elijah wanting to deny his participation in his battle against these false gods and their practices? Not on your life! “As the Lord of hosts liveth, before whom I stand, I will surely show myself unto him this day” (1 Kings 18:15). And show himself he did. He called upon all the people to make a choice between the true God and Baal. “How long halt ye between two opinions? (go ye limping between two ways) If the Lord be God, follow him: But if. Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word” (vs. 21). I am sure the reason “the people answered him not a word” is because they knew he had the truth. They knew in their hearts that the “Lord is God” and the false prophets of Baal were deceivers. Error and false teaching cannot stand the test of truth, and the rantings, ravings, and “satire” of false teachers will never change nor overcome the Truth of God. They can cry from morning even until noon, cut themselves even after their manner, with their deception and denominationalism, but the Truth will always be truth.

Propagators of error have always used sarcasm, irony and ridicule in an attempt to turn people from the truth. The use of such makes a very wonderful impression upon all those (both in and out of the church) who cannot “endure sound doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:3). These are “ever learning, and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 3:7) They are, therefore, in a position to lend open ears to all those which “cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned” (Rom. 16:17) and instead of “marking and avoiding” them as the Holy Spirit admonishes, they swallow, hook, line and sinker, the false doctrines of these fellows who are running around all over the country “prating against us with malicious words” (3 Jn. 10) and who by their “good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple” (Rom. 16:18).

A correspondent who was once a faithful member of the church, but who has for the past several years been under the influence and teaching of such men as Gordon Wilson, Jerry Phillips, Ed Fudge and their kind, recently wrote me, “I have read Truth Magazine for years and totally disapprove of their tactics of censoring a person simply because he disagrees with them.” Of course what she means is that she disagrees with Truth Magazine (or anyone else) who exposes the false teachings of these fellows. These boys claim that they still believe and preach the truth, but in reality they are compromisers and false teachers. They know this. According to Ron Halbrook’s article, “New Unity Beat Goes On, and On and On and On” (Truth Magazine, April 18, 1976), Gordon Wilson went to the Dunn Road Chapel “Winter Youth Study” in December of 1972 as one of their “featured speakers” along with Carl Ketcherside and others who have long since departed from the faith, not to “grapple with the Ketchersidian error into which they have long ago fallen” but to “hobnob” with these false teachers, and “Specifically, he commended the presence of Carl Ketcherside and the others on the program as being of benefit to all concerned.” According to Brother Halbrook, Gordon has since tried to deny that he was even there! If this is not proof that Gordon knows better than such stuff and that he was aiding and abetting false teaching, I would like to know why. Had Gordon gone there and dealt with the error of Dunn Road and exposed the false teaching of Ketcherside as he should have, instead of “making a blanket commendation of the program and of Ketcherside’s part in it” and preaching that the “works” in James 2 have no reference to “the alien sinner nor . . . what the alien sinner does!”, he would not be ashamed of his part in the program, nor would he have any reason to deny his appearing there! I have never heard of a gospel preacher ever being ashamed of appearing anywhere to preach the whole counsel of God, reproving and rebuking false doctrine. I personally would welcome such an opportunity to expose error and uphold the truth; however, appearing on such a program, commending it, and teaching that the works of James 2 “has

no reference to the alien sinner nor what the alien sinner does,” “would be and is totally disgusting to me!” It “would and is totally disgusting to me” that any man who claims to be a gospel preacher would continue to write for the Christian Standard (or any other denominational paper) and especially the kind of articles Gordon has been writing. As Brother Halbrook says, “There is nothing in these articles that would offend Christian Church people in their peculiar error-nor to save them.” If Gordon will write articles teaching the truth on such subjects as, The One Body, The Work of the Church, The Sin of Instrumental Music in Worship etc., they will never see the light of day in the Christian Standard, nor any other denominational publication; and no one knows this better than Gordon Wilson.

The conduct and teaching of such men are leading people away from the truth and into the old denominational error of “it makes no difference, one church is just as good as another, etc.” The correspondent I referred to above further stated, “I seldom go to church anywhere, but when I do go, I ‘go wherever I please. I have gone to what you would consider `liberal’ congregations, `conservative’ congregations and the Christian Church. I felt more uplifted at the Christian Church.”

This statement reflects the influence these false teachers are having on many today. No wonder they hide behind “satire” and “anonymity” and try to deny their part in such “totally disgusting” affairs.

Brother Halbrook says, “Gordon’s Facts for Faith was being published by Lindy McDaniel’s `Pitching for the Master Foundation’ with the aid of Hubert Moss and William Wallace. Edward Fudge was happily lending his support by writing a regular column. Others have provided aid and comfort to compromisers by providing articles and financial help.” It is hard to believe that these fellows have been ignorant of Wilson’s activities. It is however, high time for all lovers of Truth to come forth with clear cut convictions of courage and avow disapproval of all such conduct and teaching.

Truth Magazine XXI: 7, pp. 108-109
February 17, 1977