Truth Magazine

By James W. Adams

Religious movements are begun, perpetuated, and consummated by men. We refer to movements purely human in character. Such movements, like rivers, never rise above their sources; their course is ever downward unless elevated by alien elements. They degenerate. Since movements do not rise above their sources in character, but manifest instead the nature of their origin, it is important in reviewing a movement that one observes carefully the sources from whence it springs.

This means that one cannot separate men and their movements. It also means that one cannot deal adequately with movements without paying his respects to the men whom gave them birth. It is idealistic, unrealistic, impractical, and often dangerous simply to address oneself to the principles of a movement and ignore its principals. This is my reason for noting the sources among “conservative” brethren from whence springs the neo-Calvinistic, “unity-fellowship” movement or cult, which is the occasion of this series of articles.

Conceived by Extremists

Ernest Renan remarked concerning the Pharisees of our Lord’s time, “Religious zeal is always an innovator, even when it pretends to be in the highest degree conservative” (The Life of Jesus, p. 238, Dolphin Book). In a sense, this is but the adaptation of an old proverb to the effect, “One extreme begets another.” While I have no sympathy with the skepticism of Renan, I judge his analysis of Pharisaic character to be eminently correct. Fanatical, religious zeal is rarely, if ever, constant. It rebounds from one extreme to another heedless of consistency. In the field of Biblical exegesis, it often combines crass meticulosity with the grossest kind of loose constructionism with never a care regarding incongruity or equivocation. Therefore, movements generated by extremists are always suspect.

Our current “unity-fellowship” movement has at its very roots a number of well known, ultra-extremists, though men of unusual ability, who became so obnoxious to brethren generally, over a long period of time, that their influence was all but dead. According to their own testimony (and I heard them give it recently), they took a good, long look at themselves and were appalled by what they saw. As a result (according to their own testimony l, they thereby and therewith experienced a complete spiritual metamorphosis. Whereas they had been the slaves of a Diotrophesian exclusiveness (3 John 9, 10), which was the product of a Pharisaical self-righteousness (Lk. 18:9-14) and an untenable concept of the demands of Divine authority, they indentured themselves to a Pergamosian or Thyatiran type of permissiveness (Rev. 2:14-16; 18-23). Whereas they formerly could include in their fellowship almost no one; they now can include in their fellowship almost anyone. With no feeling of personal animosity whatsoever and with no desire to wound needlessly the feelings of errant brethren, honesty and the necessity for clarity demand that I identify brethren W. Carl Ketcherside, Leroy Garrett, and Ervin Waters among this number. In fact, in my candid judgment, they are classic examples.

A Qualification

In the use of Pergamos and Thyatira as examples, I do not imply that the brethren to whom reference is made believe in or practice the immorality characteristic of the false teachers of those places. I emphasize only the permissiveness of their fellowship. However, I am thoroughly convinced that their concept of salvation by grace with its resultant allpervasive fellowship will lead ultimately and inevitably to a compromise of moral principles. It has done so among Calvinistic bodies. The doctrine of “the impossibility of apostasy” which is inseparably linked with their concept of “salvation by grace” has spawned licentiousness. As far as I am able to determine, the Nicolaitan doctrine of New Testament times (Rev. 2:15) differed little from Calvinistic theology in this respect.

Libertarianism in Morals vs. Libertarianism in Doctrine and Service

Libertarianism in the realm of morals is certainly no worse than the same spirit when it manifests itself in the realm of doctrine or religious service. In fact, Uzzah of Old Testament notoriety died at the hands of God for merely taking hold of the Ark of the Covenant in an effort to save it from falling and possibly breaking (2 Sam. 6:1-7). On the other hand, David was allowed to live despite the sin of adultery with Bathsheba and the consequent murder of her husband, Uriah the Hittite (2 Sam. 11: 1 to 12: 24). Furthermore, David and Bathsheba were permitted to continue as husband and wife, and Bathsheba became the mother of Solomon, heir to the throne of Israel and divinely honored builder of the temple of God.

Does It Make a Difference?

It may be asked, “Does it make a difference in one’s consideration of the current ‘unity fellowship’ movement that its originators and primary promoters have been for many years noted extremists?” It does, indeed! Any movement emanating from men who have spent the major part of their lives building systems of religious faith and practice on the bases of distorted concepts of the teaching of Scripture, the fundamental teachings of which carry within their bosoms the germs of their own destruction, and which are in fact in the final throes of their demise, is not likely to be possessed of a high degree of validity.

W. Carl Ketcherside has spent most of his life with an ultra-radical wing of the all but dead, so-called “Sommer Movement, of the Midwest. (More about this later.) Leroy Garrett came up as a sort of proteg4 of G. A. Dunn Sr. in his later years. In those years, G. A. Dunn (and I knew and loved him) all but destroyed his usefulness through preoccupation with opposition to what he called “the pastor system” and other equally extreme concepts. Garrett’s early years as a preacher were spent in obtaining a succession of academic degrees and theological degrees from sectarian seminaries while he himself was opposing and rabidly denouncing educational institutions operated by brethren in which the Bible was taught daily in an effort to achieve the development of the “whole man —physically, intellectually, and spiritually.” Ervin Waters has spent his whole life in the advocacy of the non-Bible class position and the one container on the Lord’s Table position.

Had these men been more balanced, moderate students and teachers of the Word, had that which they were affiliated with been meeting with a higher degree of success and growth, had they, in the midst of their labors and at the peak of their influence, forged their views on “unity” and “fellowship,” and out of pure philanthropy, at the risk of place and position, in a thriving religious community, committed their reputations, their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to their cause, it would have made a difference! At least, it would have liberated the minds of all from lingering doubts and haunting suspicions based on the well-known fact that “necessity is the mother of invention.”

The Acid Test

Despite the fact that the “unity-fellowship” movement does not recommend itself by reason of the men who have conceived and launched it, this does not mean that it shall be judged solely on this basis. It will stand or fall on the basis of its Scriptural merit or lack of it. In articles to follow, a thorough review will be made of the men, the movement, and the teaching and practices, which are associated with them and it. Truth is the issue. Where it lies is of paramount importance.

There are valleys of sophistry to be filled. There are mountains of spurious piety to be leveled. There are rivers of inconsistencies to be dammed and bridged. There are multitudes of evasions of consequences, which must be exposed to light and truth. We promise you, it will be done!

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 21, pp.3-5
March 29, 1973

By Norman E. Fultz

Like most other preaching brethren, each week I receive a large number of bulletins from churches throughout several states. Some of these I requested, others I just happened to be receiving. They serve a useful purpose to one who is interested in knowing something about how the Lord’s work is progressing in various sectors, and many of the articles are very stimulating and helpful. Some of the articles prove to be of inestimable value when I, having myself edited a bulletin for many years, need a “selected” article. And I am not adverse to using the articles of others, especially when they say so well something that I want to say, though I do prefer to use articles which bear the author’s names. Since these little publications come in all sizes, colors, and forms, I have tried to do some evaluating which it is hoped will be helpful.

When I sit down to go through a large pile of bulletins, and they do sometimes arrive in piles, many of them I glance at hurriedly and lay aside for more careful reading at a later time; many of them I glance at and file away in “No. 13.” Some of them I read closely, some of them scarcely, some of them not at all. Now what makes the difference? Several things enter into it, and since these reactions might also be true of the readership, for which the bulletin is primarily intended, let me offer these thoughts.

One of the overriding determinants in the readability of a bulletin is its overall neatness- neatness of layout and neatness of mechanical production. And since the preacher’s (generally) time and the Lord’s money are both expended in the publishing of a bulletin, we should aim at having a readable paper in order to accomplish that for which it is intended.

While it is the discretion of the editor, which determines layout, I venture a few personal observations. Many of the bulletins received have very fine material, but in some instances, even though the mechanical part of the bulletin may otherwise be very good, there is a serious overcrowding of the material. There is very simply an effort to include more in the little paper than it ought to have to bear. This results in a lack of “white space” in the margins, between paragraphs or between different articles, but a fair degree of that “white space” aids readability. In trying to crowd in too much material, one may defeat his own purpose by “turning off” the readers. Better to have less material read than much material unread.

The type style and size are also important considerations affecting the readability of a paper. A few of the bulletins I receive are beautifully printed in fine quality, but the print is so small (even with 20-20 vision unaided) it is laborious to read. This may be prompted by the desire again to get more material in less space. Severely reduced type is difficult enough to read, but there are some who insist on the lines running the page width rather than using columns. That makes it even more tedious to read. To be sure, a little more effort is required to print in columns, but it is effort well expended. Not that all bulletins printed with single columns are like that … one lies before me now which is easily readable having been printed in normal size type with a space between each of the short paragraphs, resulting in neatness.

The mechanical production of a bulletin can seriously affect readership. This is not to say that one certain type of production must be used; but whatever is used, it should be good quality for ease of reading. Many mimeograph machines do a beautiful job and are well used by some churches. In recent years, more and more churches are making use of offset ‘reproduction. These are capable of doing a really fine job, but using offset does not assure neatness. Others have bulletins commercially printed and usually have good workmanship.

Publishing a bulletin is to a great extent a thankless time-consuming task for most. But bulletins have done, and can still do, much good as teaching mediums and as a medium for advertising the church and its services and work. Objectivity in evaluating one’s publication may be difficult, but it results in a more effective method of communication. So, look it over. Is it easily readable?

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 21, p. 2
March 29, 1973

By Irvin Himmel

Some man-made churches include in their services what they refer to as “altar call.” Instead of inviting sinners to “obey the gospel” (Rom. 10: 16; 1 Pet. 4: 17; 2 Thess. 1: 7), they invite them to “come, kneel at the altar, confess your sins, and pray through.”

The New Testament knows nothing of “altar call.” On the day of Pentecost, when sinners asked what to do, Peter told them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). He did not tell them to kneel at an altar and start confessing their sins, praying for forgiveness. Take your Bible and read it for yourself.

When the people of Samaria were taught by Philip the evangelist, they believed and were baptized, both men and women (Acts 8:12). There is no hint that they feel on their knees before an altar to confess their sins and pray through.

The eunuch from Ethiopia learned about Jesus when Philip preached to him; he confessed faith in Jesus and was baptized (Acts 8:35-39). Nothing is said about his confessing his sins, going to an altar, or praying for the remission of sins.

Peter was sent to tell Cornelius and his house what to do to he saved (Acts 11: 14). They needed to hear the word of the gospel that they might believe. They were granted repentance unto life (Acts 15:7; 11:18). Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord (Acts 10: 48). In this example of conversion there is no altar, no confessing of sins, and no commanding sinners to pray through.

After the Lord appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus, Ananias was sent to him in the city. The Lord told Ananias that he would find Saul praying (Acts 9:11). Despite his praying, his sins still had not been washed away. Ananias told him to arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16). Until one calls upon the name of the Lord by submitting to him in baptism, sins are not remitted. A lot of modern preachers would have told Saul to keep on praying. Had he asked about baptism, they would have denied that it is necessary. Contrast this with baptism.

When Paul and his companions taught Lydia and her house, she was baptized, and her household (Acts 16:14,15). She was not told to go to an altar and start confessing her sins in prayer.

The jailor was converted by being taught by Paul and Silas, by believing and being baptized (Acts 16:25-34). There was no “altar call.” He was not told to confess his sins and be saved. He was not urged to pray through and get the Holy Spirit. Paul and Silas did not preach what many modern preachers are presenting as the way of salvation.

The Corinthians were saved by hearing, believing, and being baptized (Acts 18:8). One who says, “I never heard of such teaching,” obviously has not read the book of Acts. Some who claim to follow the Bible are not teaching belief, repentance, and baptism as the plan of salvation; they have substituted their humanly devised “altar call” plan.

Jesus told the apostles to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16: 15, 16). Now, take your Bible and see if that is what Jesus said. Your preacher may say, “He that believeth and confesseth his sins at the altar shall be saved,” but you know that is not what Jesus said. Who gave any man, preacher or not, the authority to change Christ’s plan of salvation?

Men say: “Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as have come to the altar and prayed through have put on Christ.” The Bible says: “Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:26,27). Which is right, the Bible or modern man? Both cannot be right.

Men say: Baptism doth not now save us. The Bible says: “Baptism doth also now save us” (1 Pet. 3:21). Again I ask, which is right? Will you follow man or the holy scriptures?

Men say: “We went to the altar, confessed our sins, prayed to God, and he hath quickened us together with him, having forgiven all trespasses.” The Bible says: “Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath be quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses” (Col. 2:12,13).

God’s plan of salvation includes faith, repentance, and baptism. The Bible says nothing, absolutely nothing, about “altar call.” Friend, have you obeyed the gospel?

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 20, pp. 12-13
March 22, 1973

By Mike Willis

Brother H. E. Phillips recently has begun an examination in Searching the Scriptures of the doctrines taught by Carl Ketcherside. Brother Phillips attacks not the person of Carl Ketcherside but his doctrine. However, when Carl Ketcherside commented upon Brother Phillips’ review of his position, these were his words: “In the September issue of Searching the Scriptures, our brother in Christ, H. K Phillips, has the following editorial attack upon me and my work . . . . . His paper is a propaganda journalistic organ for our brethren who have created a test of union and communion out of what they refer to as ‘institutionalism.’ . . . I solicit your prayers for men like Brother Phillips, brethren who think they best serve the Father by attacking his other children” (“Coming Under Fire,” Mission Messenger, Vol. 34, No. 12, p. 190).

Little in this quotation would have bothered me had it not been that just three issues earlier in the Mission Messenger, the situation was reversed; instead of Brother Ketcherside being reviewed, he was reviewing the doctrines of another. In Mission Messenger, Vol. 34, No. 9, he replied to an article written by Reuel Lemmons. Notice the difference in what Brother Ketcherside has to say about reviewing the work of another child of the Father when he is doing the reviewing instead of being reviewed: “It has been my intention, God being my helper, to refrain as much as conscience will permit, from direct confrontation with other editors among the brethren. If they differ with my position I prefer to publish notice of their presentation and urge my readers to secure it and read for themselves. I want no rival except Satan and I do not intend to edit a partisan journal. Occasionally, however, I feel it necessary to state my convictions in opposition to an editorial, and when I do, I seek to be as objective as possible without being objectionable” (p. 129). Later, in that same issue, he charged Brother Lemmons with prejudice: “Brother Lemmons cannot deal honestly with the question because he already has his mind made up” (Ibid., p. 136). Surely, Brother Ketcherside was not reading the heart of Brother Lemmons, was he?

When Brother Ketcherside is being reviewed, the one reviewing is launching “an editorial attack upon me and my work.” The one reviewing Brother Ketcherside is one of those men “who think they best serve the Father by attacking his other children.” As a person uninvolved in these exchanges, looking at these two articles, to me Brother Ketcherside appears to have double standards–one for him and a different one for others. Let us all walk and be measured by the same rule. As a child growing up in East Texas, I learned a saying, which Brother Ketcherside needs to learn. It said, “Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it.”

Brother Ketcherside calls Searching the Scriptures “a propaganda journalistic organ.” Surely, Mission Messenger would not be a propaganda journalistic organ for the “unity-indiversity” fellowship faction, would it Brother Ketcherside? “And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” Brother Ketcherside, is your labeling Searching the Scriptures a “propaganda journalistic organ” one of those debaters tactics to which you referred in Mission Messenger, Vol. 34, No. 4, p. 62 in your criticism of the brother’s speech on fellowship which was delivered at Florida College? As one can see, not all that flows from Brother Ketcherside’s pen is honey. Sometimes Ketcherside “speaks with forked tongue!

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 20, p. 11
March 22, 1973