Truth Magazine

By Steve Wolfgang

In the fall of 1796, 24-year-old Barton Warren Stone arrived in Middle, Tennessee, at a settlement known as “Bledsoe’s Creek, five miles east of Gallatin and the site of present-day Castalian Springs. Stone visited at Shiloh,. . .about a mile east of Gallatin, and then went on to Nashville.”(1) Stone, at that time a Presbyterian, had left North Carolina where he had attended David Caldwell’s “log college” at Guilford(2) (near present-day Greensboro) and had come in contact with revivalist James McGready in May.(3) When he left, Tennessee was only a territory; while he journeyed (via Virginia) across the Cumberlands to Knoxville, it had become the third state to join the original thirteen in the Union.(4) Leaving Knoxville, Stone journeyed west to Nashville, during which trip he encountered several Presbyterian preaching friends. Arriving in the vicinity of Nashville, Together the three friends traveled throughout the area holding services in the settlements. Stone did most of the preaching. . .The Presbyterian Church in Nashville was especially cordial to Stone, and. . .Stone preach (ed ) to the congregation several times. Stone had become a familiar and admired figure in the region. Virtually every person who saw and heard him remembered the occasion.(5) At that time, Nashville was a quite unimpressive frontier settlement, “a poor village, hardly worth noticing,” said Stone.(6) In October, Stone left Nashville and moved to a place near Lexington, Kentucky, called Cane Ridge.

Sixteen years later (in late 1812, while “Old Hickory” was returning to Nashville with his militia via the Natchez Trace), Stone also returned to the Nashville area.

The years in Kentucky (had) moved rapidly and were filled with dramatic and panoramic event.-pastor for the small Presbyterian congregations of Cane Ridge and Concord; climactic manifestations of the Great Western revival at Cane Ridge; doctrinal difficulties with the Washington Presbytery; jurisdictional ‘troubles with the Synod of Kentucky; participation in the establishment and dissolution of the Springfield Presbytery; the emergence and forming. . .and active leadership in the new communion devoted to the objective of church union.(7) The immediate cause of Stone’s return was the death of his wife on May 30, 1810, leaving him with four little girls. Stone remarried and moved back to Tennessee.

In Tennessee, Stone’s first efforts in preaching and establishing. . .congregations were in the area around Nashville. . .Here he was in familiar territory and in the presence of old friends. When he had been among them as a Presbyterian, they had heard him gladly; now, they reasoned, the man had not changed, even if his message and ecclesiastical affiliation had. . .Consequently, Stone found a ready and warm response to his proclamations and organizational endeavors from some of his friends and a few of their neighbors. When he moved to Mansker Creek, not far from present-day Hendersonville. . .he was able to extend the scope of his travels. Some trips took him as far as Rutherford County, and eventually to Maury and Marshall Counties. So Stone, the best-known leader of the Christian Church, patterning his activities somewhat along the line of the Methodist Circuit Rider, personally laid. the foundation for the movement in Tennessee.(8)

Although Stone left Tennessee after two years, his influence and the work he had accomplished among the churches remained much longer.

Philip Slater Fall

A decade later, another young preacher, Philip Slater Fall, moved to Nashville from Louisville. Fall had come to Louisville as the minister of the Baptist Church in January, 1823.(9) Before the year was out he had read Alexander Campbell’s famous “Sermon on the Law” as well as the first few issues of the new publication, the Christian Baptist.

He came out as a bold and earnest champion for the Restoration Movement which was being led by Alexander Campbell. Fall expressed his views both in private and in public. Soon his Louisville congregation was sympathetic to his position. Feeling that the Baptist Church, as it then existed, was not following the practices of New Testament Christianity, the Louisville congregation, late in 1823. . . recognized and followed the New Testament as its sole and sufficient rule of faith and practice,’ and the church had the distinction of being the fourth in which the ancient order of things’ had been introduced. It was preceded only by Brush Run, Wellsburg, and Pittsburg.(10)

Fall’s new insights were strengthened by Campbell’s visit to Louisville in November, 1824.(11) The following year, Fall received an invitation to move to Nashville to preach for the Baptist church there, as well as to teach at the Nashville Female Academy. The Nashville Baptist Church’s preacher had died, and they had heard of Fall; on August 23, 1825 they wrote him, stating that “some people have started a report among us that you have become a `Campbellite’. . .you need have no apprehensions on this ground. . .you will find enough here to support you who are tied to no doctrines but those that are indubitably scriptural.”(12) This analysis of the congregation proved correct, for after only a short time, the majority of the group followed Fall in renouncing the Baptists.

Fall carried most of the congregation with him, and this schism almost destroyed the original Baptist Church of Nashville before it was a decade old. Only five members of the congregation remained true to the old Baptist faith but this did not prevent them from organizing the First Baptist Church of Nashville.(13)

At the time that Fall moved to Nashville, it was described as a “picturesque town and the natural beauty of its setting perhaps compensated in part for the material and cultural refinements which it lacked.”(14)

In 1823-and in all probability the scene had changed little by 1825-there were only about five hundred buildings in the town. Less than a dozen boasted a third floor, and even some of the larger two-story dwellings were constructed of logs. There were at least seventy-three log houses within the corporate limits. . .(15) Little more than a year after Fall’s arrival, “in February 1827, Campbell came to Nashville, his first visit to the state and Capital City, where his daughter, Mrs. John Ewin, resided.”(16)

Several of the more gifted members. . . deeply convinced of the rightness of their position, `went everywhere, two by two, preaching the gospel.’ The membership grew rapidly and the church was well on its way to becoming the largest congregation of any faith in the state. It was the largest congregation in the Restoration movement.

In December, 1830, Alexander Campbell paid his second visit to Nashville, accompanied by Jacob Creath, a former Baptist minister with whom Fall had once served as an associate. . .On Tuesday, December 14, Campbell, along with Fall, left for Franklin and Columbia.

Services in Nashville were to be conducted by Jacob Creath in their absence. At Franklin, Campbell spoke to large groups which gathered in the Baptist, Presbyterian, and Episcopal churches. In Columbia, Fall preached in the Methodist church on Saturday evening and Campbell at both of the Sunday Services.

.Campbell’s visit to Nashville, and his travels to adjoining areas, inspired the new church to greater and more active interest in `Restorationism.’ Even some church leaders of other Protestant groups who had attended the Campbell addresses went back to their churches advocating a return to `New Testament Christianity.’ The Nashville congregation was then made aware of its strategic position both within the Restoration Movement and the South. When Campbell visited Nashville in 1835, the church. . .had grown to six hundred . . .(17)

Campbell had also made a trip to Nashville in 1831, and “this time had a public debate with Obediah Jennings, Nashville’s Presbyterian preacher;” that same year, Philip Fall resigned and returned to Kentucky due to ill health.(18)

The following year, in January, 1832, 21-year-old Tolbert Fanning enrolled in the University of Nashville.(19) Fanning had been preaching for three years, not always with good success. One elderly sister told him, “You have made a failure. You are neither called nor qualified to preach. You ought not to try. You will disgrace the cause.” Farming’s homespun clothing and gangling six-foot-six frame caused one brother to remark to him, “Brother Fanning, you can never preach, and will always run your legs too far through your breeches. Do go home and go to plowing.”(20) Even one of the pioneer preachers, Rees Jones, told him, “I do not think you will ever make a preacher. It might be well for you to go at something else.”(21) Fanning had also been arrested and sued for inciting slaves to rebellion in Murfreesboro after he rebuked, in a public sermon, a prominent church member who had the week before sold one of his slaves (also a church member), separating him from his wife and children(22).

Thus, Fanning sought to educate himself at the University of Nashville, from which he graduated in 1835. After Fall’s departure, the services of the church at Nashville were largely carried on by the elders, freeing Fanning and another young evangelist, Absalom Adams, to do evangelistic work in Middle Tennessee. One of the congregations Fanning was instrumental in starting was at Franklin (although Campbell preached in Franklin, there were no baptisms until August of 1831, when the two young preachers baptized seventeen).(23) Toward the end of his collegiate career, Fanning experienced a unique opportunity:

Young Fanning, barely twenty-five years old and nearing the completion of his college course, was permitted to accompany Campbell on a preaching tour in the spring of 1835 through Kentucky and other points East, and again on a more extensive tour the following year.(24)

The 1836 tour took them through the Western Reserve of Ohio to Cleveland, to Canada and New York via Lake Erie, and finally to Baltimore before returning to Bethany. Campbell wrote of his young protege:

The church (in Nashville-SW) now counts about six hundred members, and employs brother Fanning as its evangelist. This devout, ardent, and gifted brother, about finishing his academic studies in the University of Nashville. . .expects to graduate next September, and is desirous of fitting himself for permanent and extensive usefulness.(25)

In November, 1835, Fanning had married Miss Sarah Shreve at Nicholasville, Kentucky, and apparently made plans to teach with Walter Scott at Bacon College at the session ‘beginning November 14, 1836.(26) Tragically, however, his wife died shortly after their marriage. Fanning had met Charlotte Fall (Philip’s sister) while she was teaching at the Nashville Female Academy during Fanning’s student days at the University of Nashville. They were married on December 22, 1836, and the following month moved to Franklin to found another female academy.(27) For three years they remained in Franklin, “watering” what Fanning had “planted” there several years before.

In January, 1840, having become an officer of the Tennessee Agricultural Society and .editor of its periodical, the Agriculturalist, Fanning moved to a farm (which he dubbed “Elm Crag”) on the outskirts of Nashville, near the present site of the Metropolitan Nashville Airport, Berry Field.

This was the last move which Fanning made. As the years passed, the city of Nashville grew dearer to him. It was always a warm experience to return from an extensive preaching tour to the city into which he poured so much of himself during the thirty-five years that he was its citizen. When he moved there on January 1, 1840, Nashville was a thriving, active little city of seven or eight thousand people (not including Negroes ). Already it had become a, great emporium of trade, literature, and fashion for the state . . . . Even then it was being compared to Athens because of its educational accomplishments, and someone observed, it certainly cannot be said, there is a more church going place anywhere

When Fanning rode into town as the editor of the new Agriculturalist magazine, he could count four banks and about forty wholesale and retail stores . . . Other things made Nashville a center of interest in that year, including a great political convention: . .Such ado about nothing was usually quite irritating to Fanning. For him there were more important things. . .In the spring of that year, Fanning was encouraged to see twenty-six baptized into Christ in Nashville during a series of meetings. The preacher was B. F. Hall, from whose lips Fanning himself heard the gospel when he was a lad.(28)

However, things would not be so bright for the church in Nashville for a good while. During the decade of the forties and fifties, Fanning found himself enmeshed in the controversy between Campbell and Jesse B. Ferguson, whose universalism would carry a significant portion of the church in Nashville, Middle Tennessee, and other areas into apostasy.(29) Ferguson served as minister for the church in Nashville from February 24, 1846 until his resignation on June 1, 1856, and his teachings eventually resulted in a splitting of the Nashville congregation and a suit over the property.(30) On April 8, 1857, the large and finely furnished building burned to the ground; “many were convinced that it was the work of the Ferguson party” (who had lost the suit).(31) Philip Fall was invited to return, and accepted. By the eve of the Civil War, however, the congregation still numbered only slightly more than 200, “less than half of what it had been when Fall moved away from Nashville almost thirty years earlier.”(32)

Years before, in January of 1844, Fanning had received from the Tennessee Legislature a charter for Franklin College, named for Benjamin Franklin and operated on the property at Elm Crag. It is through this medium, perhaps, that Fanning exerted his greatest influence on the Churches of Christ. One historian has said, “his lasting influence stems from his work as mentor and molder of a generation of young Southern preachers who formed the vanguard of religious conservatism ip the Disciples of Christ in the last half of the nineteenth century. When the Churches of Christ emerged as an independent group early in the twentieth century, it was led by a coterie of Fanning proteges-David Lipscomb, William Lipscomb, and Elisha G. Sewell.”(33)

The forties also found Fanning engaged in , controversy, first with N. L. Rice, the year before the Campbell-Rice debate,(34) and also with those who were rapidly making. the church of the Lord a handmaid to their human institutions and projects.(35) While Fanning. respected Campbell, and “regretted that he gave (Rice) the opportunity” to “prepare for Campbell,”(36) the formation of the American Christian Missionary Society in 1849, and Campbell’s attendant acceptance of the presidency, signaled the beginning of a deterioration of the relationship between the two men which eventually resulted in a bitter controversy involving Fanning and, at first, Robert Richardson, and later an aging Alexander Campbell.(37)

Endnotes

1. Herman A. Norton, Tennessee Christians: A History of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ ) in Tennessee -(Nashville: Reed and Company, 1971), p. 5.

2. William Garrett West, Barton Warren Stone: Early American Advocate of Christian Unity (Nashville: Disciples of .Christ Historical Society, 1954), p. 3.

3. Stone had also come in contact with Hope Hull, a sympathizer of James O’Kelly, while teaching at Succoth Academy in Washington, Georgia, in 1795 (West, p. 14).

4. Tennessee was admitted to the Union as the sixteenth state on June 1, 1796 (Stanley J. Folmsbee, Robert E. Corlew, and Enoch L. Mitchell, Tennessee: A Short History, Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1969, p. 112).

5. Norton, p. 6.

6. John Rogers, The Biography of Elder Barton Warren Stone Written By Himself: With Additions and Reflections by Elder John Rogers (Cincinnati: J. A. and U. P. James, 1847), p. 22.

7. Norton, p. 6.

8. Ibid., p. 7.

9. Ibid., p. 21. See also, for Fall’s career, Herman A. Norton, “Fall of Vine Street,” unpublished M. A. thesis, Vanderbilt University, 1951.

10. Norton, Tennessee Christians, p. 21.

11. Ibid.

12. Quoted in Norton, Tennessee Christians, p. 22.

13. F. Garvin Davenport, Cultural Life in Nashville on the Eve of the Civil War (1825-1860 ) (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1941), p. 92. See also Goodspeed’s General History of Tennessee, .(Nashville: Goodspeed Publishing Company, 1887), p. 701.

14. Davenport, p. 5.

15. Ibid.

16. Norton, Tennessee Christians, p. 23. (After some mobility, the capital remained at Nashville after 1826. Corlew, et. al., pp. 205-206).

17. Norton, Tennessee Christians, pp. 24-25.

18. James R. Wilburn, The Hazard of the Die: Tolbert Fanning and the Restoration Movement (Austin, Texas: R. B. Sweet Publishing Company, 1969), p. 30.

19. Ibid., p. 26.

20. Ibid., pp.

21. Earl Irvin West, The Search For the Ancient Order: A History of the Restoration Movement, 1849-1906 (Volume I: 1849-1865; Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1954), pp. 111-112.

22. Wilburn, pp. 24-25.

23. Ibid., p. 29.

24. Ibid., p. 30.

25. Alexander Campbell, “Sketch of a Tour of 75 Days,” Millennial Harbinger, VI (June, 1835), p. 280.

26. Wilburn, pp. 36-7, 263-264.

27. Ibid., pp. 37-39, 42.

28. Ibid., pp. 43-44. Fanning’s farm was located not far from Andrew Jackson’s “Hermitage,” and was later sold to make way for the Nashville Airport (Wilburn, pp. 46, 93, 278, n. 2; Norton, Tennessee Christians, p. 70). One of the better histories of the state praised Fanning for his work in agriculture: “Enlightened leaders such as. . .Tolbert Fanning, editor of the Agriculturalist, urged farmers to diversify and practice crop rotation, contour plowing,and terracing” (Corlew, et. al., p. 294). See also Wilburn, pp. 43, 46.

29. Davenport, pp. 110-117: Wilburn, p. 66, and chapter 8, “No Room for Repentance: Nashville and Jesse B. Ferguson,” pp. 121-143.

30. Wilburn, pp. 124, 140-141.

31. Ibid., pp. 141-142.

32. Ibid., p. 142.

33. David Edwin Harrell, Jr., review of Wilburn, American Historical Review, LXXVI:1 (February, 1971), p. 200.

34. James W. Adams, “Tolbert Fanning: Southern Giant of the Restoration Movement,” Faith and Facts, II:3 (July, 1974), p. 36; Wilburn, 118-119.

35. See Wilburn chapters 9 (“Remember Nashville-And Lot’s Wife: Preachers and Church Organization”), 10 (“Concert of Action: Church Cooperation Before 1849”), 11 (“In the Multitude of Counselors: American Christian Missionary Society’), and 12 (“Before You Drive Us From You: Missionary Society Division Widens”).

36. Adams, p. 36; Wilburn, pp. 118-119.

37. Wilburn, pp. 198-203.

Truth Magazine XIX: 28, pp. 443-446
May 22, 1975

By Howard See

In Psalms 107, the Psalmist extolled God’s mercies and exhorted the redeemed of the Lord. In the first two verses the Psalmist said, “O give thanks unto the Lord, for he is good: for his mercy endureth forever. Let the redeemed of the Lord say so, whom he hath redeemed from the hand of the enemy.” It is evident that the Psalmist considered the mercy of God in delivering Israel from the hand of the enemy, of such magnitude that those who had been thus redeemed should declare their redemption by God’s hand that all might know God’s power, love, and mercy. Their redemption was something about which one could rejoice, praise God, and tell others.

When one considers that their redemption was a physical redemption from the hand of another nation, by contrast the magnitude of our spiritual redemption in Christ Jesus becomes apparent. Paul stated that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law that the blessing of Abraham might come upon us (Cal. 3:13-14). He further taught that those who lived under the law were redeemed by Christ that they might receive the adoption of sons and thereby become heirs of Clod (Gal. 4:4-7; Cf. Heb. 9:15; 11:39-40; Rom. 8:16-17). Not only have we been redeemed from the law, but our redemption is from sin (Eph. 1:7), from all iniquity (Tit. 2:14), and from the vain conversation received by tradition from our fathers (1 Pet. 1:18-19). If the physical deliverance of Israel was considered sufficient cause for them to declare their redemption, how much more should the greatness of our redemption cause us to shout about that redemption from the house tops (cf. Mt. 10:27; Lk. 12:3). If the people of God today could be made to realize the greatness of God’s love, mercy, and goodness toward them in Christ, their mouths could not be muzzled to keep them from declaring to others what God has done for them. Indeed God so designed the kingdom as to be dependent upon the redeemed of the Lord “saying so.”

The religion of Jesus Christ is a taught religion. The author of the Hebrew letter, quoting Jeremiah, said, “. . .I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest” (Heb. 8:10-11). One of the great contrasts between the law of Moses and the law of Christ involves the fact that children were born into God’s family, the Jewish nation, under the law of Moses by a fleshly or physical birth. They then had to be taught to know the Lord. Under the law of Christ, however, man is first taught to know the Lord. Faith produced in the hearts of men through the preaching of the Word (Rom. 10:17) leads them to come to the Lord in obedience to his will. They thus become children of God by a new birth (John 3:3-5). For this reason Jesus affirms that those who are taught of the Father are the ones who come unto him (John 6:44-45). John affirms that those in whose hearts faith has been produced by the gospel are the ones given power to become the sobs of God (John 1:11-12). The apostle Paul stated it well in Rom. 10:13-14 when he said, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?” In this context the Apostle demonstrated that “calling on the name of the Lord” for salvation involves hearing the gospel preached, believing the facts of the gospel and obeying the commands of the gospel (cf. vs. 16).

God has placed the responsibility for preaching or teaching the gospel of His Son upon those who are the redeemed. Jesus said to his disciples, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Mt. 28:19-20). Paul said that “. . .it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (1 Cor. 1:21). This responsibility of preaching or teaching God’s truth so that man might be saved has not been placed in the hands of a selected clergy. The New Testament knows of no clergy-laity distinction. Every Christian is to grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 3:18). Every Christian is to sanctify the Lord God in their hearts and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks them a reason of the hope that is in them (1 Pet. 3:15). Paul reproved Christians who by reason of time should have been teachers, but who had not grown in knowledge. Rather than being able to teach others as God intended, they still needed someone to teach them the elementary principles of the gospel (Heb. 5:12). When the Christians were dispersed from Jerusalem because of persecution “they. . .went everywhere preaching the word” (Acts 8:4). Paul instructed Timothy saying, “The things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). Truly the Redeemed of the Lord are to “say so!”

The Psalmist indicates that those redeemed of the Lord should declare their redemption because of their appreciation for God’s power, love, and mercy extended to them in deliverance. Our appreciation for what God has done for us should certainly be sufficient to cause us to want to share our joys and blessings in Christ with others (Eph. 1:3). Just as the goodness of God leads to repentance (Rom. 2:4), the goodness of God should cause the redeemed of the Lord to “say so.”

The love that we have in our hearts for other people should cause each Christian to declare the message of God’s redemption. God has always required that man love other men (Mt. 22:37-39). Proper love for others will cause us to want them to be saved. But their salvation is dependent upon their hearing, believing and obeying the gospel (Rom. 1:13-17). When the redeemed of the Lord fail to “say so,” those whom they could have taught may never hear the gospel. Hence, faith cannot be produced that they might be led to obedience. The redeemed of the Lord will be held accountable in the judgment for their failure to declare their redemption (cf. Ezek. 3:1821). Jesus said, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them” (Mt. 7:12). Necessarily implied in the Lord’s statement is the fact that if we are thankful that someone took the time and put forth the effort to declare God’s message of redemption to. us, then we likewise ought to declare the message of redemption to others.

There are many reasons some of the Lord’s redeemed ones do not “say so.” Some are lacking in love for the Lord. Jesus said, “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me” (John 14:21). In verse 24 Jesus said, “He that loveth me not keepth not my sayings.” Inasmuch as the Lord has placed the responsibility of declaring the message of redemption upon the redeemed, a failure to “say so” indicates a lack of love for the Lord. Others, lacking proper love for their neighbors, fail to declare their redemption. Still others are ashamed of the Gospel. They will talk to others about everything but their redemption (cf. Rom. 1:16). Many put other things first and simply make no arrangements for time or opportunity to teach God’s plan of redemption to others. Many others are worldly minded (cf. 1 John 2:15). They are not truly interested in spiritual things and consequently are not really concerned about those who have not yet been redeemed. Truly the redeemed of the Lord must lay aside every hindrance, and be busy declaring God’s

message of redemption (Heb. 12:1-2; 2 Cor. 7:1; Gal. 5:7).

All of the ways by which to declare the message of redemption are ineffectual unless the redeemed conduct themselves in such a way that Christ can be seen living in them (cf. Gal. 2:20). Jesus said, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven” (Mt. 5:16). One of the greatest hindrances to human redemption is a failure of many who have been redeemed to be an example of righteousness. Peter emphasized the influence of a righteous life on others in discussing the husband-wife relationship (1 Pet. 3:1-6). This is one way in which all of God’s redeemed ones not only can “say so” but must “say so” if their redemption is to lead them to heaven. The redeemed of the Lord may also declare their redemption to others through the use of attractive, well written tracts.. Almost every local church makes good tracts available for use. There is power in the printed Word. The distribution of the printed Word is certainly one way that all can declare their redemption.

Peter declared that each redeemed person has the responsibility of growing in knowledge through study that they may be able to,,answer the questions asked of them concerning their lope in Christ (1 Pet. 3:15). Faithful Christians are to be able to teach others (Heb. 5:12; 2 Tim. 2:2). Each redeemed person should prepare himself in order to be able to sit down in the home of non-Christians and declare unto them the message of redemption. Those who have the ability should prepare themselves to declare God’s redemption through the teaching of Bible classes or in public preaching. Remember that God gives us responsibility on the basis of our ability. God knows what our ability is and holds us accountable for not using the full extent of the ability which he has given us (Mt. 25:14-30). May we each one say with the Psalmist, “Let the redeemed of the Lord say so,” and then do it.

Truth Magazine XIX: 28, pp. 441-442
May 22, 1975

By David O. Lanius, Jr.

“Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised); and let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works; not forsaking the assembling of ‘ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another; and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge ~of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice of sins” (Heb. 10:23-26).

As we note our text together, we can immediately see that there was concern among the writers of the New Testament about absenteeism from the worship assemblies. The inspired writer of Hebrews was trying to check this tendency, knowing that it would lead to apostasy. As there was trouble then, so there is now. Every church seems to have this same problem. Why do Christians continue to absent themselves from the assemblies of the saints? Is it really because of the excuses they offer? Here are some of the most popular excuses:

1. “I attended the morning services, wasn’t that enough?”

2. “I had company.”

3. “I overslept.”

4. “My children do not like to attend that often.” (Neither do they like to attend school that well.)

5. “I needed to work overtime at the job.” (How about working overtime for God?)

6. “I was just too tired.” (He has never missed a day on the job because he was tired.)

Actually the truth must be that, lacking a love for God and their brethren, they just do not want to come.

There are dire consequences which result when one consistently does not assemble.

1. You fail to let your light shine (Matt. 5:16).

2. You weaken the efforts being put forth by others to save souls.

3. You harm yourself in that you have not partaken of the spiritual food necessary for spiritual growth (Jn. 4:24; Acts 2:42; Heb. 5:8-9).

4. You rob yourself of being with those of like precious faith, the Father, and Son (Matt. 18:20).

5. God is grieved by your continued absenteeism. It is hard to worship Him when you fail to attend for that purpose.

6. You show to the world what is first in your life.

7. You fail to do your part, making someone else carry your load; such is shameful and sinful.

If you begin to miss services, you will become weaker and weaker each time you allow a service to pass by.

One of the greatest blessings we have in our earthly lives is the opportunity as Christians to meet together and join our minds in worship to our God Who created and sustains us. Every time we meet, whether it be on the Lord’s day, in mid-week, or during a gospel meeting we can be “built up in the most holy faith.” We can “cast all our burdens on Jesus” and “let Jesus dwell within our hearts.” We can raise our voices together in song and express deep emotions which we may never feel able to express at any other time. Our spirits will be more humble, reverential and penitent after an hour of prayer, song and study together than they could possibly be during our busy weeks without such an hour. Instead of making excuses for missing the services of the church, we should constantly thank God for every opportunity that we have to assemble with our brothers and sisters in Christ. Let us determine now not to miss a single service of the church.

Truth Magazine XIX: 28, pp. 440-441
May 22, 1975

By Billy Ashworth

Today, we hear the expression “confrontation or, negotiation” used often in the civil realm concerning our relationship with rulers of foreign countries. It is an interesting idea as far as political diplomacy is concerned. I endorse this approach in strictly material relationships in a sincere effort to ward off a holocaust that would destroy a vast portion of humanity. However, in the religious realm, the idea of “negotiation” with leaders of religious error is repugnant to anyone who loves the truth. “Negotiation” is “a conferring, discussing, or bargaining to reach agreement” (Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, College Edition). To me, negotiation is a form of compromise, “a settlement in which each side gives up some demands or makes concessions” (Ibid.).

Compromise in religion is severely condemned in the word of God, in both Old and New Testaments. I suggest the reader refer to Ezra 4 and Neh. 4:6. In these passages, we read of the attempts at compromise by the “adversaries” of God’s people. Notice Ezra 4:2: “Then they came to Zerubbabel and to the chief of the fathers, and said unto them, Let us build with you: for we seek your God, as ye do; and we do sacrifice unto him since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assur, which brought us up hither.” Note their response (Ezra 4:3): “But Zerubbabel and Jeshua, and the rest of the chief of the fathers of Israel said unto them, Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God: but we ourselves together will build unto the Lord God of Israel as king Cyrus the king of Persia hath commanded us.” The malicious reaction of the adversaries is set forth in verses four through six; the letter they composed and sent to Artaxerxes accusing the Jews to him is stated in verses eleven through sixteen. This shows the maliciousness of leaders of religious error when their attempts at compromise are spurned by children of God. Read also Neh. 4-6 for additional attempts of the adversaries of God’s people on the other side of the cross to compromise.

In the fifteenth chapter of Matthew, there seems to have been a disposition of the disciples of Christ to compromise with the Pharisees from Jerusalem. There was a mild rebuke of Jesus when they asserted (verse twelve): “Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended after they heard this saying?” (i.e. Jesus’ rebuke of the Pharisees for their hypocrisy and perversion of the law, verses 3-9). Now, notice Jesus’ answer: “Every plant which my heavenly father hath not planted shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” By “let them alone,” He meant: Don’t you apologize or compromise! This reminds me of some professed Christians today: “Just preach the gospel and let others alone! Let us just preach the Bible.” Now, whenever you hear such pleas, you can rest assured that here are people who are not converted to Christ! They do not want religious error and the perpetrators thereof exposed. It would be interesting to hear these “bleeding hearts” explain how one can preach the gospel and let others alone! One cannot even preach Christ as the Son of God and let others alone; unbelieving Jews would be offended! One cannot preach the existence of Jehovah and let others alone; the atheist would be offended. Such compromising attitudes are nauseous to lovers of truth to say nothing of being anti-scriptural!

Jesus did not let the unbelieving Jews alone (read Matt. 23). Paul did not let the false teacher, a Jew named Bar-jesus, alone (Acts 13:4-12). No, Paul “confronted” Bar-jesus (“confront: 1. to face, stand, or meet face to face. 2. to face boldly, defiantly, antagonistically. . .” Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, College Edition). The record says that Bar-jesus the sorcerer “withstood them seeking to turn the deputy from the faith. Then Paul set his eyes on him, and said, O full of all subtilty and mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? And now behold the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. . .” (Acts 13:8-11). Bar-jesus was already spiritually blind, as are all false teachers. In Acts 15 there is the inspired account of Paul and Barnabus’ disputation (confrontation) with the Judaizing teachers that came from Judea teaching falsehoods. They did not “steal away” sweetly and let them alone! Neither did they attempt to deal with them “diplomatically” and “slip up on their blind side” in a vain attempt to show them the error of their way over a long period of time while their heresy would be eating away at the life blood of the saints.

The only examples I find in the Bible concerning the proper attitude toward and exposd of sin is direct confrontation. When radical surgery is needed to remove a malignancy, there is no time for procrastination, no “dilly-dallying” with false teachers either without or within the church of our Lord. Those who would compromise the truth of the gospel, who attempt to placate false teachers and their deceived followers, must be confronted by the faithful people of God. When Jude wrote to the saints in the first century, he exhorted them to “contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). My brethren, this battle cry still rings out to us who compose the body of Christ. If we do not respond and fight against every wicked scheme and doctrine of men, then just who will? “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh. . .Casting down imaginations (reasonings) and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. . .” (2 Cor. 10:3, 5). Brethren, whether it is against perverters of the gospel of Christ on the outside of Christ who are denying His plan for redemption and the church or against false teachers and compromisers within who promote and defend .human institutionalism among churches of Christ or who encourage “ecumenism” by extending fellowship to religious groups who do not “walk by faith,” we must contend earnestly for the faith or no one will! Let us unsheath the sword and get on with the job.

Truth Magazine XIX: 28, pp. 439-440
May 22, 1975