Truth Magazine

By Donald P Ames

Controversy has been raging in Nigeria for some time regarding the “issues” we have been fighting here in America. Although conservative brethren formerly worked well in the Western part of that country, while the liberals dominated the Eastern part, the war there disrupted the whole country and created an air of unrest and independence among the natives there. Following the war, as the brethren there began to take a second look at these things, various efforts were engaged in by the liberals to maintain their grip on the churches, including the creation of a special board for the purpose of barring conservative preachers from entering the country at all for a 2-year preaching trip, as is usually (and was formerly) done there and elsewhere.

As this feeling of unrest grew, many of the native preachers began having second thoughts about the sponsoring church arrangements as well, and our liberal brethren were quick to move to head off trouble in that direction as well. Responding to the growing pressures for direct-support of preachers, on Mar. 11, 1974, J. W. Nicks not only sought the Green Lawn, Texas, brethren to secure additional funds to be used to support preachers, but also urged that support be sent direct to the native preachers rather than through the sponsoring church arrangement to calm down this restlessness. The Texas brethren responded on Mar. 23rd with $4,800.00 and also letters of appeal addressed to “All Nigerian Brethren” to consider the tremendous sacrifices made in their behalf. Note the following comments by Jim Massey in a letter of Mar. 16th:

AI think you also may know that we have had to borrow money, that Brother F. W. Mattox and I have personally borrowed $2400, and right now we don’t see where that’s coming from. The note came due, the loan had to be paid and we went back and we begged at the bank and said let’s borrow it again, so they let us borrow it again. “

Certainly it does not take a lot of reading to see that this statement is meant to draw on the strong sense of obligation felt by many Nigerians for American assistance. Again, let us note the comments made in a letter by Rees Bryant, Mar. 18th:

“Brother Nicks was the first American brother to move to Ibo-land. He helped to establish the Onicha Ngwa Bible Training College. He was its first principal. He trained many of you to preach, and he helped you to establish many of the congregations where you now preach. He has taught many of you `the way more perfectly.’. . . Surely, brother Nicks has not forgotten you.”

But, since the tide seemed to be favoring the direct support of native preachers rather than the sponsoring church arrangement, they quickly decided to go along with it–with a minor catch, of course! “I wouldn’t help you for a minute . . . and we will not have anything to do with supporting any Pharisee or forbidding brother in Nigeria, but if you believe direct support is a way, one of the good ways like other ways are good, then we are willing to help you.” (quoted from letter by Jim Massey). Naturally they felt the growing unrest, so they agreed the direct-support of preachers was “better” at the time. However, rather than surrender their sponsoring-church arrangement altogether, they now seek to weaken the opposition to it by tying a slight catch to any support that is sent. I wonder who has made these “issues” there a test of fellowship? I wonder why this catch, if all can agree that the direct support of preachers is scriptural? (For more details on their efforts to make these issues a test of fellowship, read the article “Immigration Crisis In Nigeria” by Leslie Diestelkamp, Truth Magazine, Mar. 8, 1973).

In a country where money is scarce, the liberals are now using it as a vicious tool, reminding the Nigerians, “You have survived sickness, suffering and starvation” (quoted from letter by Rees Bryant), and if you now accept “our opinion,” we will help you again, but only if you accept “our opinion.” J. W. Nicks went on to point out in a letter to Nigerian brethren that there would be no Nigerian unity in the work unless all conservative brethren repented and recanted (Mar. 23rd). To them, it is all a matter of opinion, but you must accept “their opinion” or there can be no fellowship. Yes, money can indeed be an effective-and vicious-method of coercion.

False And Absurd Charges By Mattox

But, let us note some of the false and utterly absurd charges made about the church here in America by these “loving, honest, Christian gentlemen.” If anything shows the futility of their cause, these certainly do.

(1) F. W. Mattox’s letter of Mar. 18th affirms: “Thirty years ago two American preachers tried to dominate the American Churches by teaching that it was wrong for two or more Congregations to cooperate by putting their money together to expand the Kingdom of God.” It would be very interesting to find out which two brethren Brother Mattox would select to blame this on-he has a mighty big field! Even more interesting is the statement by G. C. Brewer himself in the Gospel Advocate; Aug. 27th, 1953: “In sponsoring a missionary, the church simply underwrites his support. It is therefore, responsible to the missionary for the amount that it. takes for his maintenance, and it is responsible to any brethren, who may be willing to help support the missionary, for the missionary’s soundness, for his Christian character, and for his qualifications as a missionary. This whole idea was born because of a very sad condition that existed in the brotherhood forty or fifty years ago.” And he was defending the system!

(2) Again, “this anti teaching still hinders the work and causes division in America. Fortunately, only 3 to 5 per cent of the American Churches have followed their divisive teaching.” (My wife almost choked on her hot tea when I read that to her). This charge would be downright funny if it were not for the fact such an outright lie is told in a country where they have no means of verifying the truth and is intended to discourage faithful Christians by the shear weight of “numbers” (see Ex. 23:2). If Brother Mattox is sincere (and I can hardly see how with such an absurd statement), I would suggest he take another looks-a figure more like’ 3040 per cent would be more accurate. But, since when did numbers make a thing right or wrong? In the division over the Missionary Society, and the instrument, about 80 or 90 per cent of the church was carried off into digression. Did that make those liberals right?

(3) Further: “In Lubbock, Texas, we have 17 strong congregations of loyal brethren. They have 3 small groups who do not grow, and they do no mission work that we know of.” (It is good he added his latter clause). Of course this smear is to be then applied generally, and is absolutely false. I easily can cite circumstances that are just exactly in reverse. But note only 3-5 per cent affected by “anti” teaching, but 3 out of 20 churches in Lubbock equals 15 per cent there. Oops! Of course he might claim . that he was counting “noses” here, and again statistics can be easily reversed. But, so what?

(4) And then our “loving” brother urges that all who do not bow down to their institutional idol “should be disfellowshipped as factionalists.” Again, who split the log? No wonder they no longer have the courage to defend their false practices-it is now easier to call for a disfellowshipping instead.

And By Jim Massey

Calling all who stand for a “Thus saith the Lord” as merely “Pharisees”‘.and “troublemakers,” Jim Massey then accuses faithful brethren in Nigeria of “binding Diestelkamp’s law, Akime’s law and others’ law.” I wonder what he would have stood on 100 years ago in the division over the instrument and the Missionary’ Society? What do you suppose the digressives would have called him? Do you think they might even have accused him of “binding Lipscomb’s law”? And then; what do you think all that would have proven about the scripturalness of his position? A lot of words, name calling and accusations, and nothing else! A nice tactic when one lacks Bible authority for his practices!

(1) From his letter of Mar. 16th to Nigerian brethren: “They see a big distinction between evangelistic cooperation and that this must be kept separate from benevolent cooperation, that relief must be an entirely different pattern and different way of cooperating than support. You and I know that the Bible does not make this distinction.” Now, first of all, there is no “different way of cooperating” involved. The Bible pattern is that in each case the assistance came direct-to the preacher, and to the elders overseeing the congregation in need. He denies there is any pattern at all. Who says so? Jim Massey. Bible proof? Not offered! Jim Massey has spoken! But try to get them to defend that teaching and to find authority for their sponsoring-church arrangement, and they run like a scared jack-rabbit, denying the Bible gives a pattern or defense of their false teaching either. They are not interested in defending it at all, and I can not blame them.

(2) “Another silly distinction is that God’s commands to all Christians must be kept separate and distinct from His commands to the church. I believe what He commands every member of the church to do He commands the church to do because the church is every member. Isn’t it silly, isn’t it a Pharisaical distinction to say that you must keep separate what God commanded all Christians to do and not let the church do these because there are those commands for the church to do and those, commands for all Christians to do, when really the Bible teaches that the church is all Christians.” Sort of sounds like the answer from the Pharisees in Jn. 7:47-49, doesn’t it’! His proof! “I believe”! Jim Massey has spoken again! Certainly such passages as 1 Tim. 5:16, Acts 5:1-5, Matt. 18:15-17, etc., show the unscripturalness of such teaching. No wonder he offered no Bible proof.

(3) “Another silly distinction is that helping saints must be kept clearly distinct from helping non-Christians.” Proof? Try Jim Massey again! He said it was “silly” so that ought to settle it–per him! All he need do is show one Bible example of a church from its treasury helping the needy of the world in general, and he would have an argument from the Bible to go on. I predict the Christian Church will find authority for the instrument to be used in worship first–and I deny it is therefor either of them or we would have heard it long ago: But, Jim Massey has spoken, and all Nigerian brethren should give heed! Jim Massey says to ask for Bible authority is to be “Pharisaical,” and thus wrong. Move over denominationalism-he is well on his way (1 Pet. 3:15)!

Conclusion

These things need to be exposed, not just because of the false and absurd nature of them, but because it reveals the true “nature” of these “loving, Christian gentlemen” when they feel they will not have to face their own words. Also because many in foreign countries have no means of verifying how accurate their statements are, and they are obviously designed to discourage faithful brethren from standing for the truth by deliberate falsehoods regarding the truth here in America.

There are a number of faithful brethren standing for the truth in Nigeria, and we commend them for it. But, it always strikes me interesting to see how liberal brethren can wax so mighty overseas, and then grow so quiet here in America (just like the Pentecostals). I now wonder how well these brethren will like having to see their own words being revealed here as well’? Church supported colleges, orphanages, prisons, hospitals, homes for unwed mothers, Boy Scout troops, recreation, etc. can all be justified by their reasoning used in this article. Do any still believe there is no danger of apostasy?

Truth Magazine, XVIII:50, p. 8-9
October 24, 1974

By Ron Halbrook

January 7, 8, 9, 1974, we attended the annual Abilene Christian College preacher workshop. Every session was attended, extensive notes were taken. Not only did we discuss the speeches with other sound brethren who attended, we talked to some of the speakers personally and even got a question on the floor in one of the public forums. Just as the workshop closed, we ran into a young preacher whom we once greatly admired and still love; sad to say, he is one of the victims of current error on grace, faith, unity, and fellowship. When he asked for an evaluation of the sessions, we responded, “I am more convinced than ever in my life to resist liberalism and compromise in every form; what I have seen and heard here are the sad fruits of gradual drifting.” After several months of reflecting on what we saw and heard there, we are sharing some of those events along with our reflections on them.

When we arrived, J. D. Thomas was concluding the keynote speech, in which he highlighted the relation of love to unity. “We need more love. Too many say, ‘Yes, but …… He seemed to imply that love will allow unity and fellowship to continue amidst all the diversity which would be expressed on the program. But (yes, brethren, there are some valid “but=s@?), love is too often used as a nebulous generality. “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments” (1 Jn. 5:2). Love does not tolerate sin and false doctrine, but seeks to rescue brethren from such.

Not only liberalism in regard to the church’s mission and organization, but also Classical Liberalism; Christian Church doctrine, and mushy denominationalism were expressed from the platform. To recall a phrase from Moses E. Lard, if the kind of “love and unity” we hear so much about today is accepted, what used to be New Testament churches “will become gay worldly things, literal Noah’s arks, full of clean and unclean beasts” (Lard’s Quarterly, Vol. II, 1865, p. 262). Lard wanted no part of “effeminate sentimentalism” and was “accused of writing too severely on these matters.” But he recognized the innovations of his day for what they were: a great victory for unbelief through the stratagem of a series of small victories. “It is high time that manful and outspoken voices were lifted against them. They are the insidious leaven of Satan.” The next comment by Lard might well have been written as a prelude for the A.C.C. workshop. “He is a poor observer of men and things who does not see slowly growing up among us a class of men who can no longer be satisfied with the ancient gospel and the ancient order of things. These men must have changes; and silently they are preparing the mind of the brotherhood to receive changes” (ibid. pp. 258-262). Two of the six papers presented at the forum were exceptions to this pattern.

“Woman’s Place in Church Activity”

Norman Parks (Murfreesboro, Tennessee) delivered a main address on “Woman’s Place in Church Activity.” Parks coupled Gen. 1-27 with Gal. 3:27 in an effort to prove there are “no restrictions on activities in the communal relations (i.e., church activities, RH) on the basis of sex.” He avoids -the force of other passages by affirming that they represent synagogue practice or cultural concessions and that “the Bible is not a timeless blueprint” anyway. That the wife must obey the husband may be like the slave must obey his master-“it no longer applies in our society.” But since Parks claims Gen. 1:27 and Gal. 3:27 are normative (even to the exclusion of other passages), one wonders if he is not appealing to a blueprint and practicing the same “simplistic Biblicism” he charges others with. It must be nice to have it both ways: the Bible provides a “blueprint” for sexual equality, but the Bible is not really a “blueprint” at all! Preach it round; preach it flat.

Robert Marshall (Torrance, California) gave a “Comment” paper pointing out that whereas the gospel is offered to all mankind freely on the same terms, “the New Testament does not remove all subordinate roles.” Respect for such roles is presented “on theological grounds,” not just cultural. Both he and Cecil May, Jr. (Vicksburg, Mississippi) pointed out that the roles of each sex are “transformed in Christ, not removed or switched.” 1 Tim. 2:8-15 “forbids certain activities,” i.e. woman leadership over men in the church. In the “Discussion” period, May responded to a question by Doug Parsons (Overland Park, Kansas), “Man and woman are equal like Jew and Gentile.” God gave the gospel to all. Peter says, “Heirs together of the grace.” Parsons needled Parks for making Gal. 3 “determinative” to the exclusion of all else. Clifton Rogers (Dallas, Texas) forced Parks to defend explicitly woman apostles, prophets, evangelists, and teachers, all leading in mixed assemblies.

“Liberalism in the Church”

“Liberalism in the Church” was prepared by Glenn L. Wallace (Visalia, California), and read by “Buster” Dobbs (Houston, Texas) due to Wallace’s illness. This was the high point of the series. “Liberalism is in our ranks today,” including “bits and parts of the old liberalism and the Neo-orthodox positions. . . . ” Mission was repeatedly cited as a prime example. Many satellite issues were mentioned, but Wallace sees “our liberalism” chiefly in the rejection of the New Testament as a “blueprint.” Some want to “restructure the church . . . without a blueprint of Biblical patterns.” They will “open the gates on the fellowship question” and create “brotherhood without boundaries.” “Either we have a blueprint in the Bible or we have no blueprint, and those who take the position that we do not have a blueprint should not be permitted to use the Scriptures in support of anything that they say or do.” “. . . the Neo Pentecostal and the theological liberal are brothers under the skin. They reject a Biblical blueprint; they both seek God in their own human experiences. . . .” If this ‘formula for failure” be accepted, “we may as well burn down our building and join the church of our choice.'” Wallace complained that some churches “have adopted … the total social gospel outreach … classes for the mentally retarded, adult tutoring, youth recreational programs, Headstart programs … credit union for the poor. ..’legal counseling’. .. .””Our liberal brethren do not always fly their true colors. They are often guilty of theological double talk. Some men can deliver a speech and then spend twice the time in explaining what they did not mean, than it took to give the speech in the first place.” He ended, “It is later than we think.” Yes, and it was later than the Wallaces and Dobbs thought 20 years ago when they gave impetus to emotionalistic pleas, no-patternism, centralization, and social-gospel programs via twisting passages like Gal. 6:10!

In Raymond Kelcy’s (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma), “Comment,” reservation was expressed. “I do not see abandonment imminent. . . .” Some say, “Love unites, not doctrine,” but both are needed, he added. F.L. Lemley (Bonne Terre, Missouri) attacked the pattern concept, offered Rom. 14 as the solution, and said when we distinguish between “errors of intellect and rebellion of heart” we will realize “there is not a false teacher in this house.” “I have not seen a charismatic brother who is a false teacher…. Brethren, ‘we be brethren.’ ” Paul’s case shows sincerity does not cover for the sin of false doctrine, responded Dobbs.

Edward Fudge (Athens, Alabama) asked Dobbs, “What do we mean by a blueprint? Why haven’t we eliminated our own differences.'” Dobbs cited 1 Cor. 11:9; standing for truth may result in some factions; it can be avoided only if we “compromise conviction.” Fudge asked Kelcy isn’t it true that we must answer yes to the question, “Are those known as the church of Christ a denomination.'” since they are “larger than the local church but smaller than all the people of God.” Many Christians “haven’t heard of the Restoration Movement, but to answer yes shows signs of a dangerous concept,” said Kelcy. Noting Lemley’s denial that “our pioneers had all truth,” Fudge asked him, “What are our good points that keep you with us?” “Freedom to believe in Christ, study, and express myself,” answered Lemley. Returning to Dobbs, Fudge explained, “There is one body and all the saved are in it; this is `the church of Christ’ in the Bible. But a historical group has taken this name.” Doesn’t “we as a brotherhood” sound denominational.’ Dobbs agreed such, a phrase “might not be best. We should say the Bible teaches, not this is what the brotherhood believes.”

Joe Barnett (Lubbock, Texas) pressed’ Lemley to admit he believes the Bible gives some kind of a pattern- “Christ is an absolute pattern,” he admitted. In the forum, we personally asked Lemley if 1 Tim. 3:1-15 does not affirm the pattern concept; he then told the audience 1 Tim. 3 is not an absolute pattern even if there are qualified men in a church.

A member of the conservative Christian Church, Thomas Thurman (Cincinnati, Ohio), pled for ” `Organized’ Support for Missions,” under a regional board of elders. Each region could have its own board. The Bible “pattern … for church – missionary relationships” is found in Acts. Thurman thinks the prophets and teachers of Antioch “may” have represented several churches in Antioch-“the first mission board.” The “overseas evangelizing association” might solve some abuses in mission work. “In actual practice churches

of Christ do have representatives on various boards (camps, colleges, evangelizing associations, etc.)…. But for some reason, never made quite clear to me, when it comes to mission work a line is drawn. This position which allows for the operation of colleges under trustees who are representatives of the church while failing to allow missions similarly to function seems totally untenable to me. . .” Good luck, friend; some folks called “antis” have been trying to get that point over for many years without much success!

Earl West (Indianapolis, Indiana) “Commented” that the key to abuses in mission work is to teach properly local churches and their elders. Robert Fife (Milligan College, Tennessee) also of the conservative Christian Church, “Commented” that no method “is a binding pattern that would not work under persecution.” He, too, was mystified at those who want centralized “cooperation in benevolence, but not in missions. What principle makes the difference’?” Thurman got up and again underscored the inconsistency of claiming the church can work through college or camp trustees but not missionary trustees.

In his “Questions,” Ferrell Jenkins (Tampa, Florida) pointed out to West the similarity between his sponsoring church arrangement and Thurman’s evangelistic association of elders. West responded that the sponsoring church created “no extra-Biblical organization” but the association plan did. Thurman answered Hulen Jackson (Duncanville, Texas) on “why can’t the local church give the leadership without the committee you propose” by saying that plan is permissible, but the sponsoring church taking funds from many churches “is taxation without representation.” In an exchange between West and Fife, West said the college is only a “human institution” parallel to Christians running a “hardware store-it is not connected to the church just because the people are Christians.” But Thurman was up again asking if the churches could use and support A.C.C., why not also his association? This brought Jackson to his feet affirming college trustees “do not represent local churches,” the school is “an adjunct to the home, not the church,” and, “I will resign as a board member of A.C.C. if it ever changes that concept.”

Jenkins scored with the interesting point that Thurman’s association might oversee local preachers in the region since they are sometimes abusive! Also, after the program, Kent Ellis (Austin, Texas) reminded West that Thurman’s association plan had already been used for city and area wide “Campaigns for Christ.” With our own ears we heard West innocently and meekly deny knowledge of any such thing!

“Authority and Tenure of Elders”

“Authority and Tenure of Elders” was presented by Everett Ferguson (Abilene, Texas). One’s abilities and qualifications involve not only natural endowments, but also “developed abilities.” One who serves others well develops leadership qualities. An elder is able to oversee, manage and exercise authority because he has used his gifts to serve, thereby developing the power of true leadership. Thus Heb. 13-17 says “obey,” meaning to be persuaded by or to follow. Christians will “voluntarily subject themselves” to “the moral authority of service and example.” An elder is one “out in front in the care of spiritual needs.” Many passages were discussed, the major thrust being that elders have authority based on gifts, developed, abilities, and service, “not coercive authority or political authority.” Their tenure or “term is determined by continued qualifications.” Ferguson raised the question whether “stipulated terms” should be assigned to facilitate the ability of the church to review and “withdraw approval” if necessary.

Virgil Jackson (Eugene, Oregon) said since elders need to retire for various reasons, the “term concept is helpful.” Whereas a man should be “appointed for the term of his qualification,” an annual review, i.e. one year term, could be good. Cline R. Paden (Lubbock, Texas) felt Ferguson was saying “it is forbidden to forbid,” i.e. denying a basic ingredient of the elder’s authority: “punitive power.” Ferguson responded he did not mean “to exclude discipline,” adding later that several of the comments offered by others on discipline “complemented” his paper. In the question period, Leonard Gray (West Monroe, Louisiana) asked Ferguson, “Is the authority in leadership and character, or in. the office’?” He answered, “Both in a sense. There must be character and leadership first, then recognition of it for the office.” Ike Summerlin (Austin, Texas) felt elders get too involved with “physical work,” to which Ferguson agreed, adding, “We could use deacons more.” Paden pressed Ferguson to be more explicit on whether the elder’s authority is “just good example” or an authority in office which he did not have before appointed. Ferguson explained that he distinguished between the individual or “personal influence” and the collective responsibility or “decision making for the church;” the former exists before appointment, the latter only after.

“Responsible Christian Journalism”

The editor of Mission, Victor Hunter (Dallas, Texas) spoke on “Responsible Christian Journalism.” The Christian journalist “cannot begin by staking out boundaries beyond which he will not operate” based on any party, organization, or dogma. A good journal “is concerned with the meaning of Jesus Christ,” which includes “any topic under the sun, from church to child care, from student unrest to states rights, from religion to racial conflict, from politics to pornography, from gospel to government, from ghettos to gerus, etc.” “Faithfulness to the gospel” is not “maintenance of the status quo.” The church is best served by editors who “question church, policies, practices or doctrines,” not those who “foster, conserve and protect.” The latter functions are especially characteristic of papers serving human institutions (publishing houses, colleges, etc.). (Hunter later told me personally that some A.C.C. professors were forced off his staff by the college.) Every subject should be explored with “diversity of opinion.” Truth should be pursued since it always “is filtered through the spectacles of one’s own subjectivity.” A journal should “examine, analyze and report” and leave it to the church to “preach, teach, counsel, evangelize, edify, and minister. . . .”

Hollis Miller (Murray, Kentucky) “Commented” that God’s “completed revelation” should be presented in journals, not “skepticism.” “The New Testament writers are the first Christian journalists,” and they limited themselves by revealed “dogma.” “Journalism is just a preacher’s chalkboard,” added Eldred Stevens (Dallas, Texas). “Some openness is doctrinal instability,” he continued, citing 2 Jn. 9; Rom. 16:17; 2 Tim. 2:2. Stevens dubbed Mission “the voice of theological liberalism in the church today,” adding of Hunter, “He wants restructure, not restoration.” This is the path of J. S. Lamar and Isaac Errett, Stevens said; they judged the Gospel Advocate as narrow, hurtful, unwholesome, cold, legalistic. They began the Christian Standard to exemplify “Christian character instead of orthodoxy” and a major division finally occurred. “Another breach is on the horizon.” We might add that students of church history will recognize Hunter’s answer to a later question on whether he believed the Bible was inspired. “I don’t accept a theory of inspiration, but I accept inspiration.” So said Isaac Errett in his attempt to set aside verbal inspiration and infallibility, almost in those exact words! (The Missouri Christian Lectures of 1883 (Rosemead, Calif.: Old Paths Book Club, 1955 reprint), pp. 117-204). As McGarvey said, if Errett (and Hunter) are right, “. . . we know that some uncertainty attaches to their (Bible writers, RH) writings, and, what is worse, we know not how to locate this uncertainty in any certain place, but are compelled to let it spread like a mist over the whole Bible…. It takes away certainty even from the apostolic commission, for, if this theory be true, who can affirm with entire confidence that Jesus ever said, ‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.’ ” (Ibid., pp. 184-185).

In the question period, Carroll B. Ellis (Nashville, Tennessee) expressed agreement with Miller and Stevens. Ellis asked Miller about the term “party champion” and his answer showed that what some call partyism is merely ‘”being Biblical,” as with Acts 2:38. Dudley Lynch (Dallas, Texas) asked Miller to clarify freedom; Miller said, “Freedom in Christ is exercised within the confines of revealed scripture…. To say the Bible is not sufficient is beyond the limits of Christian freedom.” A staff writer for Mission, Warren Lewis, tried to rescue Hunter by asking if he expected his staff to be devoted to Scripture, to which he answered yes. The problem here is ambiguity, as is seen from Warren’s later statement to Tom Roberts that the Holy Spirit told him “what the writings of Luke mean today, not what they meant in the first century.” Stevens did admit the Gospel Advocate lacks the open debate characteristic of earlier days.

“Brotherhood Politics”

Firm Foundation editor Reuel Lemmons (Austin, Texas) spoke on “Brotherhood Politics.” All should seek the power of good influence (salt, light), but “the unholy use of power is the danger.” Too many make personal views “tests of fellowship” and “center on rotten situations” which do not really exist; this is self-promotion. When men weigh what they should teach or do against what the reaction of the people will be, “that is brotherhood politics.” The church is suffering “a major crisis of confidence” because too much dirty linen is being hung out for all to see “without constructive help” being offered. “Let us throw the rascals out!”

In some of the most astounding “Comments” we ever heard, Stanley Shipp (St. Louis, Missouri) admitted to having been guilty of about everything Lemmons mentioned and more! Shipp was syrupy, sickly, and sorry. (I felt like a priest at a confessional!) Dan Anders (Houston, Texas) pointed out that Lemmons failed to indict the liberals, but used the “keepers of orthodoxy” for all his illustrations. Lemmons said he had often been charged with being on both sides of the fence. He said, “I never stamp the party line,” but, “If you want those on the right to hear you, you must talk on that side and if you want the left to hear you, you must talk on the other side.” Anders later pressed Lemmons as to why the liberals were not included in his indictment, so he finally said (as did Roy Ward of Oxford, Ohio, former Mission editor) that the “ultra-right” must be hit “because most pressure comes from there now.” When Leonard Mullens (Dallas, Texas) asked Lemmons if he agreed some liberals are trying to “restructure the church,” he said he feared “over-reaction” would do worse damage than liberalism. Anders and Mullins pressed Shipley to tell us what to do about immoral brethren and false teachers; he first said we must go to the individual, then conceded we might have to go’ to the local church, but said he was not convinced we ever “have the right” to go further in public exposure.

Concluding Remarks

J. D. Thomas assured us that “we all believe in God and are totally committed to Christ; we believe in the inspiration of the Bible. We believe the Bible is the place to get the answers.” In spite of the fact that we differ on how to get the answers out of the Bible, “we be brethren.” This theme was continued in the closing prayer, as the leader said he had learned the spirit of love and toleration for the first time at this workshop. There were two, overriding themes which surfaced again and again during the 3 days: (1) this “broadminded”spirit of love and toleration which is supposed to solve all the diversities and (2) a growing liberalism which is increasingly, unabashedly Liberalism. Leroy Garrett agrees liberalism was a strong theme, but thought the “reactionaries” were “in the ascendancy” (Restoration Review, Feb., 1974, p. 231f). Read the handwriting on the wall again, Brother Garrett. Generally, what we saw was the older men, with graying hair, desparately trying to put the brakes on liberalism, and a good number of younger men urgent to speed up the progress of liberalism. But the real hitch is the emphasis on “toleration,” “love,” “brotherhood,” and “we be brethren” which came from many others. This is the blanket that is supposed to be thrown over all the diversity, and the resistance to liberalism will be blunted by this device. This is the very atmosphere in which liberalism moves best. It will continue to grow, consolidate its gains, and finally exert its burgeoning strength in a real showdown. As Eldred Stevens said, “Another breach is on the horizon.”

Truth Magazine, XVIII:50, p. 3-7
October 24, 1974

By Mike Willis

Scriptural Elders And Deacons

by H E. Phillips

When Cogdill Foundations secured the right to re-print this book by Brother Phillips, no one could have been more delighted than I was. There have been few books which I have considered to be worth enough of my time to outline, but this was one of them. I thought enough of this book to prepare a 31 page, single-spaced, typed outline of the book because it was out of print; I did not have a copy of it, and I thought the material was valuable.

Phillips used several chapters discussing the nature of church government, including a discussion of perverted organizations, the no-elder theory, and the scripturally organized church. Under this section, Brother Phillips answered some of the no-eldership arguments propagated by the Sentinel of Truth even before they were making them. The book also contains sections on the relationship of apostles, elders, and preachers, the eldership and the apostasy, scriptural appellatives for elders, etc. However, the meat of this book is in its thorough examination of the qualifications of the elders; clearly, one-third of the 312 page book deals with the qualifications. Our brother handled this section masterfully; he treated the subjects scholarly, but practically. His manner of considering the alternatives from which one could choose, examining the weaknesses and advantages of each position, and then forthrightly stating his own position, leaving one with no doubt about where the author stood is,”commendable. One some occasions, the former editor of Searching The Scriptures plainly acknowledges that he does not know enough about the mooted point to speak dogmatically about it. You will appreciate the disposition reflected in the book.

Inasmuch as the qualifications of the elders and deacons overlap, Brother Phillips gives less time to the study of the office of the deacon than he does to that of the eldership. A short chapter is included on the duties and the office of the deacon. One chapter is even included to discuss the wives of the church officers.

In his “Introduction To Second Edition,” our brother said, “The only changes I would attempt to make if I were to write another such volume now would be to include a chapter or two on the false doctrine that the church of our Lord is not an organized, functional entity, and some additional study on the super-organizational structure of liberal churches as they accelerate their speed toward complete apostasy…. I hope to publish another volume on this subject viewing it from current objections and problems.” I look forward to receiving a copy of this future volume alluded to by our brother and hope that those near to him will encourage him to accomplish his plans.

I would be tempted to recommend this book because of my personal love for Brother Phillips, as would anyone who personally knows him would be, or because it is published by Cogdill Foundations with which I have some association. However, though these might be motives for recommending a book, however illegitimate they might be, they are not motives for buying a book. I have not recommended the book for these reasons. A person buys a book because of the utility he receives from it. There is no other uninspired book on the eldership to my knowledge which will profit you more than this one; it far” surpasses those written by H. E. Winkler or J. W. McGarvey. This is the reason that I recommend this book to you.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:50, p. 2
October 24, 1974

By Jeffery Kingry

Should they whisper false of you,

Never trouble to deny;

Should the words they say be true

Weep and storm and swear they lie!

 

Paul wrote to the Corinthians “godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death” (2 Cor. 7:10). Paul’s letter not only gives us an insight into what true repentance is, but also of the Apostle’s attitude towards the rebuke which brings repentance. Paul was a man of God’s own choosing, and he recognized that the stern rebuke and the threat of Apostolic discipline was necessary. Sin is like an infectious disease. If it is not dealt with early and sternly, it never becomes better; it just gets worse. Strong measures were called for in the situation in Corinth and Paul used them.

But even in the face of the necessity to condemn Corinth for what they allowed among them, he was in distress over the outcome of his action. “When we were come into Macedonia we could find no rest for our body, but we were troubled on every side; without were fightings, within were fears” (7:5). Paul had no choice-he agonized over whether he had done the right thing (7:8)-but in the end he did what needed to be done, recognizing the pain and danger of offense it might bring. The sting of his rebuke was brought out by necessity, and the threat of apostolic discipline a last ditch threat against the Corinthian church.

But, transcending both the rebuke and the reticence of the Apostle are the lessons on repentance that we obtain for application today from this passage. The ideal that the teacher was striving for was the perfection of his Corinthian brethren in the Lord. Paul’s sole goal in his rebuke was to bring the brethren to where they needed to be. His goal, and his driving for it brought pain-real pain-for both the teacher and the student alike. But the pain itself was not the object of the rebuke, but what came out of that pain: a return to the mind of God-to the right way-a changed way of life. Paul’s goal was not just to drive out the evil, but to promote healing and growth as well.

This brings us to the significance of Paul’s words on repentance. True repentance is given in contrast to the sorrow of the world. True repentance is according to God (ver. 9). Repentance makes us see sin as against God. When we “turn again” it is to come to the mind of God. Repentance leads to salvation, eternal life. One never regrets true repentance and the change it works in a life, but gives thanks for an opportunity to come back to the mind of God.

The sorrow of the world on the other hand is not repentance. The sorrow is not for the sin, or sorrow for rebelling against God, but sorrow for the consequences of our sin. We are embarrassed, found out, we feel shunned, neglected, uncomfortable. But there is no real sorrow for having’ sinned against God. Worldly sorrow does not find eternal life–but death, for it still holds to sin. Worldly sorrow would reform hell by banishing its pain, not its evil. Barclay says, “it is not really sorrow at all . . . it is only resentment. It is resentment at punishment and resentment at the fact that it did not get away with its sin. There is no real sorrow for the sin itself, but for the fact that it was found out. It would remain in the sin if the rebuke had not been forthcoming, and if in got the chance to do the same thing again and escape the consequences, it certainly would do it.”

This writer, and others I feel sure, have seen persons filled with “worldly sorrow” come forward after an “invitation” many times. These brethren usually preface their confession with “7f I have sinned or offended anyone. . . .” This “backdoor” repentance should be rejected by those who receive it. If one has sinned, he knows that he has sinned, and there is no need to repent of something that is not sin. The true repentant is like Job. 7abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes. “

How many times has this preacher seen fake repentance to avoid censure, or to “take off the heat.” Repentance is not for the purpose of wriggling out of a difficult situation, it is a reversal of wrong action to righteousness. Godly sorrow breaks down pride. It does not issue forth in “Well, I am repentant, but there are a lot of other people who need to repent too!”

Alexander Campbell told a story to illustrate the difference between true repentance and worldly sorrow. The story is more than an anecdote, for Brother Campbell declared that it was true in its entirety. A deacon in a local church had a disagreement with an unbelieving neighbor. The week of the falling out the church was engaged in a Gospel meeting, in which the deacon took great interest. One evening towards the end of the meeting, his neighbor was there “looking unusually serious and devout-so much so, that some of the congregation began to suspect that he might be under conviction.” The meeting progressed to the last night, and as the meeting was about to break up, the deacon arose “for the hundreth and first time, to relate his experience, and exhort the sinners present. He protested that he had been born of God, and yet he felt his own unworthiness. ‘I feel my friends’ said he, ‘that I am a miserable, unworthy creature. I have done everything that I ought not to have done, and left undone everything that I ought to have performed. I can say with Paul that I am chief of sinners, and deserve nothing but the wrath and the curse of God.’

“Having resumed his seat, it was with astonishment, and not without hope, that the brethren noticed the deacon’s neighbor rise in his place to speak. All eyes were turned. ‘I feel it my duty’ protested the neighbor, ‘to rise and bear witness to the truth of what the deacon has said. He has acknowledged himself, before you and his God, to be a scoundrel. I know him to be such—I can bear witness to his dishonesty.’ The deacon fell into a rage, exclaiming vehemently, ‘You lie!. You lie!’ and in a spirit none too becoming the congregation broke up and dispersed….”

Brother Campbell concluded his story, and his words summarize the point of this lesson as well. AThe deacon never expected nor wished to be believed in his confession. They were made as the most effectual mode of illustrating his spiritual pride and of obtaining the reputation of being religious par excellence. When taken at his word, he evinced his hypocrisy and insincerity. Too many, we fear, of such confessions are made rather form the spirit of pride than humility, and ought therefore, to secure but a mean credit for the narrator@ (Campbell, Millenial Harbinger, Dec. 3, 1832).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:49, p. 13-14
October 17, 1974