Truth Magazine

By Robert C. Welch

Never in the history of mankind has there been such a battle to gain control of the minds of men as we are now facing. And never has it been so hard to keep from being swayed by the propaganda.. The, swift and total coverage by the media of communications has intensified the barrage. The lack of restraint from the extremes of political; economical, amoral, sociological and religious ideologies has given strength and’ courage to the forces of such rebels. The results of this battle for our minds are manifested in the confusion, mental disorder, crime, fear, family breakdown, and lack of interest in the church and religion:

The forcefulness of this barrage of propaganda has kept many from accepting the truth of the gospel and has turned the minds of many weak Christians from:. the path of righteousness. “And even if our gospel, is veiled, it is veiled in them that perish: in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn, upon them” (2 Cor. 4:3, 4).

Communism and its near relative, socialism, are presented as a desirable way of life by far too much of the news coverage and social studies in this land of freedom and free enterprise. We are saturated day and night with the propaganda of the entertainment world, portraying, as the way of life, murder, civil rebellion, lasciviousness, adultery, perversion, drunkenness, nakedness and every other crime and social evil which the writers can think of and which the actors can portray. The trend in the highly influential field of education is not only to remove any reference to morals, but to play up much of that which has throughout the ages been considered immoral as acceptable in today’s society. Direct attack is made on the Bible and those, who would show faith in its teaching, by denying creation and substituting evolution, by denying inspiration and claiming it to be myth and superstition or mere historical development, by denying its precepts and substituting human standards of morality or amorality and pseudo-spirituality.

God demands the undivided mind of the person. There is no middle ground. There is no double standard. There is no split-loyalty. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” (Matt. 22:37).

The truth of the gospel is the weapon which the Lord has, provided for the enslavement of our minds. He battles for our minds also, to release us from the brainwashing which the world has inflicted upon us. “For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but mighty before God to the casting down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God, and bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:4,5).

Make no mistake about it; we, preachers of the gospel, are after your minds also. This is the only way we can save you from sin, make you children of God and keep you under his protection and blessings. We must make our voice heard above the den of voices in the land. For the safety of children of God we have this urgency. “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve in his craftiness, your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity and the purity that is toward Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3). We are attempting to get men to heed the following admonition: “And be not fashioned according to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God” (Rom. 12:2).

This is the only thing that will turn the world from its present mad rush toward social, moral and, spiritual disaster. Let us strive with all our might to control men’s minds with the gospel of Christ. Let us always try to keep our spiritual and moral sanity as we have to live under the brainwashing influence of moral filth, deceit, ungodliness, and wickedness that is so nearly pervading the sight and wound.

Truth Magazine, XX:7, p. 2
February 12, 1976

By Dennis L. Shaver

I BELIEVE the male is the stronger sex, and as such he is to give honor unto the woman, the weaker sex (Pet. 3:7).

I BELIEVE the man is to be the head (ruler) of the woman (Eph. 5:23).

I BELIEVE the woman is to submit herself unto the man (Eph. 5:22,24; 1 Tim. 2:11).

I BELIEVE the man is to love the woman as he loves himself (Eph. 5:28).

I BELIEVE the man has the primary responsibility of providing the income for the home (1 Tim. 5:8).

I BELIEVE women should bear children and be keepers at home (guide the affairs of the home) (1 Tim. 5:14).

I BELIEVE women must not usurp authority (be domineering, or have dominion) over the man (1 Tim. 2:12).

I BELIEVE a woman cannot, by the authority of God, preach in the assembly of the Lord’s people (1 Cor. 14:34,35).

I BELIEVE women are to be help-meets with the man (Gen. 2:18).

I BELIEVE women are to love, and respect their husbands (Eph. 5:33).

I BELIEVE a woman who realizes her place in God’s plan is worth more than all of earth’s riches (Prov. 31:10).

Truth Magazine, XX:5, p. 12
February 5, 1976

By Dan Walters

Brother Jerry R. Phillips has written a series of articles on miracles in Facts for Faith, a publication previously connected with the Gospel Guardian and edited by Brother Gordon Wilson. A number of his points have been made by other writers on miracles in recent years. It is my belief that these brethren are mistaken in their views and are making potentially dangerous statements concerning miracles.

Brother Phillips begins by defining miracles as “those events which nature, left to herself, could never produce.” It is his belief that miracles are in harmony with the laws of nature, and that they cannot be contradictions of nature since they both proceed from the same source. Any natural occurrence which shows the guiding hand of God is, according to Phillips, a miracle. Thus he goes on to include providence, discipline, and answered prayer among the miracles. Of each of these workings he says, “It is divine. It is above nature. It is a miracle.”

He does not teach that the spiritual gifts are still with us today, though he is less than emphatic in his denial of. this possibility. He says, “these manifestations of the Spirit were apparently temporary in that peculiar form . . . .” He also says that “a sophisticated study of 1 Cor. 13 may result in a variance of interpretation regarding the time and reason for the termination for these gifts. . . .” The conclusion that the gifts were terminated ” . . . is not to be taken as tantamount to the declaration that miracles have ceased. . . .”

I mention his lack of assurance on this question because it is my belief that his views make it impossible for anyone holding them to successfully oppose neo-pentecostalism. Let us return to his definition of miracles and see whether it is scriptural. All of the events described as miracles in the Bible are contrary to the laws of nature as we know them, even if nature were being influenced or guided in one direction or another. There is no instance where providence, discipline, or answered prayer within the confines of natural law is referred to as a miracle. Miracles were very definite events about which no honest person could be mistaken. This is illustrated by the fact that the miracles of Jesus are numbered. The turning of water into wine is called the “beginning of miracles,” (John 2:11). The healing of the nobleman’s son at Capernaum is called “the second miracle that Jesus did” (John 4:54). If any answered prayer or any act of providence were a miracle, then such miracles of Jesus could not be accurately numbered. It is true that Brother Phillips tries to separate the signs and wonders of New Testament times from “miracles” of today. But the point is that his definition of a miracle does not come from the Bible.

Miracles are harmonious with nature only in the sense that both come from God and both fulfill God’s purpose. But miracles do contradict nature in the sense that they defy certain natural laws which at all other times remain in operation. A miracle can best be called a temporary suspension of natural law.

Brother Phillips tries to prove that the miracles of Jesus were compatible with natural law by saying that they “were predicated on the fact that God had already ordained in nature similar events.” Of the first miracle of Jesus he says, “God has been making wine out of water since He first caused it to rain.” Nonsense! God has never done any such thing. Wine is composed not only of water but of acids and sugars which could never be derived from water in a million years by natural processes. Brother Phillips mentions other miracles which seem to fit his theory, but there is one miracle he completely ignores: the time that Jesus walked on the water. The natural laws of gravity and of the relative density of water and of human flesh preclude the possibility of anyone walking on the water as long as such laws remain in effect. One or more of these natural laws had to be suspended in order for Jesus to walk on the water. The only other possibility is that another unknown force came into play which allowed the body of Jesus to overcome normal hindrances. Such an additional force would nullify the effect of natural law and thus be equal to its suspension.

Brother Phillips tries to show that miracles still occur by saying, “Any answered prayer is assistance from. God. Any assistance, from God based upon petition: could not be called a natural occurrence. Any supernatural occurrence is a miracle. If not, then we pray in vain.” He is unable to see how God can operate within the framework of natural law, without doing anything supernatural, and still cause certain events to occur which would not have occurred without His help. Why cannot the God who made nature use nature without going beyond any of the limitations He has imposed? There are many choices within nature. A man may live, or he may die. A flood may occur at a certain place at a certain time, or it may not. If God chooses to sometimes influence these choices in order to answer prayer, why must this be called a miracle or labeled as supernatural?

Brother Phillips would have us pray for miracles today. And I mean “honest-to-goodness” miracles. He says,. “For many prayer has become little more than meaningless formality bordering on blasphemous hypocrisy. It is no longer unusual to observe at the bedsides of those terminally ill a half-hearted, standing request for God to give the patient a restful night. Instead there should be the fervent, humble, dependent cry for the Father to heal the afflicted one.” Remember that this hypothetical patient is “terminally ill.” That means he is definitely dying and that there is no hope of his recovery. Still we are told to pray for his recovery-which would be indeed a miracle. Why not have the lame and the blind and the dying to come together in a public assembly and there let the preacher pray for them? Is there really any difference? If Brother Phillips is not advocating miraculous divine healing of the type accepted by Pentecostals, then he should explain himself. If I can pray for God to work a miracle and heal a dying man, then why cannot I pray to walk on the water in order to save a drowning swimmer?

No, brethren, we cannot have it both ways. Either miracles still occur or miracles have ceased. If they still occur, then we had better see about a union with the Holiness people. If they have ceased, then we should neither pray for them nor expect them. Brethren, some of us are not merely drifting; we are being swept along in the rapids and are about to plunge over Niagara Falls without even a barrel!

Truth Magazine, XX:5, p. 11-12
February 5, 1976

By Ron Halbrook

Satire speaks with a sparkle in its eye; and with a chuckle. Alerted by Satire’s mischievous grin, the listener looks behind surface humor and other appearances for the real meaning. Satire generally mixes the witty and the caustic, though one may be relied upon more heavily than the other from time to time. Its effort at clever humor is an effort to highlight the inconsistent and the incongruous. Not mere child’s play nor humor for its own sake of Satire employs expressions of ridicule, sarcasm, irony, and contempt for serious purposes. It exposes or attacks vice, follies, stupidities, abuses, and error. To employ Satire in one’s service, successfully, is. not easy. The “noose” prepared by Satire for another can all too easily end up on the wrong neck! Swift said, “It is as hard to satirize well a man of distinguished vices, as to praise well a man of distinguished virtues.”

Far from opposing all satire, we commend its proper use. Proper use is cautious and careful, and above all in the service of nothing but truth. Torch Magazine sometimes carries “Sessions in Satire.” This writer’s “Startling Report: Some Now Preach That Sin Consigns One to Hell!” is satirical (Truth Magazine, August 29, 1974, p. 12). But “Ridicule should never be used as a substitute for answering the arguments of an opponent . . . True, humor belongs to the family of truth” (Leslie B. Flynn, Serve Him With Mirth, pp. 80-1). In other words, satire is perverted and abused when it is resorted to as a mere gimmick of craftiness. There is a cunning, unscrupulous cleverness of “fleshly wisdom” which perverts and subverts by “good words and fair speeches.” But Paul said, “We . . . have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully” (Rom. 16:18; 2 Cor. 1:12; 4:1-2).

The very same Apostle recognized that “there are certain conditions which can be most successfully touched by the shafts of ridicule” (Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 19, p. 152). In 2 Cor. 4:8-10 and many other places, Paul employed “the weapon of satire.” With their claims of attainment, spirituality, knowledge, and regality, the Corinthians had assumed a position which “far transcended their early master.” “And all this without the insignificant aid of such a very commonplace teacher as Paul!” (ibid.). Charles Hodge, in his Exposition of the passage (p. 71), said,

That the passage is ironical, and even sarcastic; cannot be denied. This is not the only instance in which these weapons are used by the inspired writers. The prophets especially employ them freely…. The propriety of the use of weapons so dangerous depends on the occasion and the motive. If the thing assailed be both wicked and foolish, and if the motive be not the desire to give pain, but to convince and to convert, their use is justified by Scriptural examples.

False teachers, sometimes with smug self-confidence, may lightly scorn “the day of small things” when the faithful people of God set out to work. But when the work begins to progress, anger joins astonishment to produce scorn and ridicule. The classic example is found in Neh. 2-4. The Jews returned from captivity and said, “Let us rise up and build. So they strengthened their hands for this good work.” At first their enemies “laughed us to scorn, and despised us.” “But it came to pass, that when Sanballat heard that we builded the wall, he was wroth, and took great indignation, and mocked the Jews.” Can these weaklings erect a wall of defense? Who will help them, their gods? Do they think this is the work of a day? And what will they do for materials – “revive the stones out of the heaps of the rubbish which are burned?” Tobiah could hardly wait to add his sarcasm to the taunts of Sanballat, so he caps off the satire of the Jews’ labor with this scornful barb: “Even that which they build, if a fox go up, he shall even break down their stone wall.” Not because he opposed satire but because it had been pressed into the service of wrongdoing, Nehemiah prayed, “Hear, O our God; for we are despised: and turn their reproach upon their own head.” “To the shallow judgment of the Samaritans, Nehemiah and his workmen seemed to be engaged in a work that would come to nought – they would ‘have their labor for their pains;’ but their contempt was wholly misplaced.” Though satire has its proper uses in the service to truth, “it is the favorite weapon of wrong in its weakness. When men can do nothing else, they can laugh at goodness and virtue” (Pulpit Commentary, Vol: 7, p. 40).

In their own effort to stop the Jews, the Samaritans used every trick of ingenuity and might of power. All to no avail. “The last laugh” was on them. Neither their power nor their subtlety could stop that miserable little band of Jews from “turning ashes into stone.” Their reproach turned “upon their own head” – but it was no laughing matter. It is never a time for levity or flippancy when people “oppose themselves” in evil, error, and wrongdoing (2 Tim. 2:25). In tears rather than laughter, Paul told the Jews after their rejection of the gospel of Christ, “Seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles” (Acts 13:46). Yet he could say, “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved” (Rom. 10:1):

When the heathen, people, kings, and rulers took counsel against Jehovah and His Messiah, that counsel included a perverted use of satire (cf. Matt. 26:68; 27:29, 40,42). Imagine the incongruity of puny men, mere creatures of dust, rising up against the purposes of mighty Jehovah, the I AM of all Eternity! “He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. . . . YET HAVE I SET MY KING UPON MY HOLY HILL OF ZION” (Ps. 2 emp. mine RH). Their reproach returned “upon their own head.” Paul returned the reproach of scorners “upon their own head” when he spoke of the gospel as “foolishness,” using their own terms. “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness …. hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? . . . . it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (1 Cor. 1:18ff). When false teachers “proposed to enter on new regions of truth,” John apparently made “a sarcastic reference to (their) professed higher knowledge.” “Whosoever goeth onward (or forward) and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God” (2 Jn. 9). (Cf, B. F. Westcott, The Epistles of St. John, p. 230; W. E. Vine, The Epistles of John, p. 118). When John exposed the folly of false teachers’ claims to superiority, the shame they attempted to cast upon the “old foggies,” “mossbacks,” “stand-pat-ers,” “guardians of orthodoxy,” and “anti-progressives” fell back upon their own heads. ERROR CANNOT STAND LIGHT! It hides behind clever slogans, crafty ridicule, scornful satire, and any other cover darkness can provide.

Faith Magazine: Use Or Abuse of Satire?

The warning of Moses, “Be sure your sin will find you out,” is kin to the prayer of Nehemiah, “Turn their reproach upon their own head” (Num. 32:23). It has come time for the unmanly perpetrator of Falth Magazine to bear the shame and reproach he sought to heap upon others. For those unacquainted with this satire, it appeared in January of 1974 and was mailed to churches all over the country (which raises the interesting question: Who supplied the capital for such an expensive feat?). It was a parody of Truth Magazine, including grossly distorted sketches of brethren Cecil Willis and James W. Adams with articles supposedly by each of them. The former is represented as a self-willed dictator (“Caesar Willsit”) and the latter as an arrogant character-assassin. In a listing of “Associate Editors” (by use of the initials of the Apostles), Brother Adams is presented as a conniving traitor to Christ and as having gain rather than godliness for his goal (in the place of Judas Iscariot). By means of a comic strip, the spirit of Truth Magazine is pictured as that of a “brotherhood watchdog,” “keeper of orthodoxy,” and Final Judge of the hearts of brethren. (The comic implies that no one can judge what or who is “sound or unsound,” thus making Tit. 1:9 and 2:1,15 ludicrous.) Through satire, Willis and Adams are ridiculed as (1) claiming to “know the hearts of everybody else,” (2) repeating gossip without attempting to separate rumor from fact, (3) creating the “fellowship-unity” controversy, (4) “dealing in personalities,” (5) engaging in such crimes for sake of “competition with other faithful papers,” and to promote “business interests,” (6) seeking “the pre-eminence” by using the specific tactics of Diotrephes, (7) “jealousy” at those who “have accomplished a great deal more already than I had when I was their ages,” (8) never changing “on anything,” (9) using a style of writing calculated to “impress with my intellect readers who really cannot understand” the style; (10) being “guilty of worse sins, by my attitude and conduct, than those of which I am accusing” others, (11) regarding “preaching within the context of a passage” as dangerous, and (12) attacking maliciously those who promote “love and unity” in the church. An effort is also made to present and defend the Ketcherside-Garrett-Fudge twisting of 2 John 9.

JERRY PHILLIPS (of St. Charles, Missouri; preacher for the church at St. Charles, near St. Louis) has finally confessed, under pressure, his part in this shameful matter. He shows no remorse for it. Some brethren have been overly impressed with the purely human element in Jerry’s satire: it is articulate, witty, artistic, and sardonic. (The same can be said for the satirical joke denominationalists tell. Scene in heaven: “Who is that little group inside that high wall separated from the rest of the redeemed?” “Oh, that’s the ‘church of Christ.’ They think they’re the only ones here!”) Except for his attempt to discuss 2 John 9, Brother Phillips is meanly vindictive and sadistic in his “dealing with personalities” alone. “When humor becomes meanly vindictive, it may proceed past sarcasm, snobbery, scorn and end in sadism” (Flynn, op. cit., p. 81). As Jack Gibbert said of Phillip’s Falth, it is “a costly slick stab in the back” (Truth Magazine, Mar. 20, 1975, p. 6). When Adams and Willis have named persons, it has been in connection with specific doctrinal issues being discussed. In our use of satire, we have invariably signed our names. Omitting the Biblical pattern of spiritual responsibility in satire (for masterful examples, see 1 Kgs. 18:27 and 22:15), Jerry tries to hide behind what he conceives to be his literary “right to remain anonymous.” As he suggested in Falth, he did everything possible “to insure the anonymity of the satirists.” As the elders in Eau Gallie, Florida, commented, “No servant of the Lord would be ashamed or afraid to sign his name to his writing if it was calculated to glorify God (1 Pet. 4:11)” (Truth Magazine, Mar. 28, 1974, p. 2).

Enemies Aroused

The poem is true which says, “He who has mingled in the fray of duty, that the brave endure, Must have made foes!” Paul found that his every effort for truth at Corinth was scorned and ridiculed by false teachers. He was caricatured as a fickle and, feeble minded, pitiable appearing, common laborer too ashamed of himself to accept wages (see 2 Cor.). When he in turn exposed their false teaching; it was all too obvious why they created a comic character to guffaw at! What kind of enemies have brethren Willis and Adams aroused? To see what Jerry Phillips stands for – and fails to stand for – is to understand why he was so intemperately aroused against Truth Magazine. As James Adams noted on Falth, “Many times, the greatest compliment to an individual and the position he occupies is the character of those who oppose them” (Truth Magazine, June 6, 1974, p. 6). What are the facts about Jerry Phillip’s doctrinal stance?

In 1969, Jerry was with the University church in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Ed Fudge conducted a meeting on “Unity,” advocating fellowship with brethren who are liberal-minded on institutionalism and related apostasy. Taking Fudge’s line at face value, Phillips began announcing the meetings of such liberal-minded people and calling on such men to lead prayer in public services of the church. Those opposed to such compromise were gradually driven off, so that the church reversed its former stand and openly avowed liberalism after Phillips moved away (Truth Magazine, Sept. 27, 1973, p. 4).

1972 found Jerry with the church on Elm St. in St. Charles, Missouri. His bulletin for December 6 of that year announced “THE HARTFORD FORUM” including these speakers: Wayne T, Hall, Harold Key, Grayson H. Ensign, Leon Fancher, Charles Holt, Boyce Mouton, Kirk Prine, Roy Weece; Hoy Ledbetter, Leroy Garrett. While denying any desire to endorse or compromise, notice how he ends up describing the occasion: “It is merely a gathering of brethren who love the Lord and desire to learn more about His word and each other. Plan to go. You’ll be glad you did. Food will be served by the ladies of the church.” Where did he learn that apostates like Key; Holt, Ledbetter, and Garrett “love the Lord” and desire His word? They may claim such, but Christ rejects such claims on account of “their fruits” (Matt. 7:20-23; Lk. 6:46). They’ are “blind leaders of the blind,” and Phillips was derelict in his duty by encouraging brethren to sit at the feet of such men without clearly identifying their character (Matt. 15:814): Phillips’ view of “loving the Lord” is denominational, not Biblical (Jn. 14:15, 21; 15:14; 1 Jn. 5:1-3).

The same bulletin promoted Dunn Road Chapel’s (a church long under Ketcherside’s influence) “WINTER YOUTH STUDY,” for December 29-31, 1972. “It promises to bean enlightening and faith-building experience. . . . The church has invited W. Carl Ketcherside and Gordon Wilson to conduct the study with the assistance of Rod Langston and Bernie Crum. Brethren Wilson and Ketcherside will also be the evening speakers on Friday and Saturday of that week; respectively.” Jerry speaks of “concentrated study and devotionals” and “a God-centered, scripture-filled, faith building” experience, but never a word about the dangers of sitting of the feet of false teachers “in sheep’s clothing” (Matt. 7:15-20). Nor does he express the least caution or reservation about the entertainment program included, or about Wilson’s compromising position on the same program with Ketcherside. What Jerry Phillips, Gordon Wilson, Ed Fudge and others do not seem to realize is that the only kind of compromise possible with false teachers is the kind that occurred between the bear and the hunter. The hunter got a new fur coat … and the bear a full stomach! The sad experience of many young men now lost to the cause of truth, is proof aplenty:

Conclusion

Falth mentions “the satirists”-plural. Whoever the other perpetrators may be, Jerry Phillips must bear his own reproach upon his own head. After the initial “heehaw” is over, nothing remains but sadness. Sadness for Jerry’s sake. Sadness for the sake of churches and individuals who are duped by such deceivers. If Jerry cannot find room in his heart for repentance, and will not seek to repair the damage he has done, then at least let him learn this one thing. “Tricksters, like those who produced Falth Magazine, are not going to laugh us out of the arena” in the battle against error and for truth. Nor have we forgotten what all this maneuvering is for. ALL THIS “MANEUVERING IS SIMPLY AN EFFORT TO AUGMENT AND THEN TO DEFEND A BROADENING OF OUR FELLOWSHIP” BEYOND THE LINES LAID DOWN IN HOLY WRIT (Truth Magazine, Mar. 7; 1974, p. 6). They shall not pass. Their reproach shall be upon their own head.

Truth Magazine, XX:6, p. 8-10
February 5, 1976