Truth Magazine

By Connie W. Adams

The September 30, 1996 issue of Sentry Magazine is devoted to a slanderous attack on Guardian of Truth, the staff writers, and the board of the foundation. For many years Floyd Chappelear, the editor of Sentry Magazine, has taken pot-shots at the editor of GOT and some of its writers. These have generally been ignored because they were judged unworthy of comment and would have led to an extended battle to no benefit for the readers of the two papers. When I edited Searching The Scriptures we also were the objects of scattered fire from the editor of Sentry. We chose to ignore it and go on with our work. But this last assault is too blatant to overlook. I have not been asked to say what I am about to say but justice demands that something be said. I bear no ill-will to our brother. He is a man of obvious ability and talent.

A Summary of Charges

In a front page article which covers over four pages of copy, plus other articles which are intended to lend support to his charges, his article entitled “A Call For Concern” contains the following charges against GOT:

 We are accused of being respecters of persons.

 We have zeal without knowledge.

 Meekness and humility are absent.

 We are possessed of an arrogant and condescending spirit.

 One writer is charged with trying to destroy the man and not the argument.

 We keep an enemies list and have a “Craig Livingstone mentality.”

 We defame men.

 We have slandered an “aged luminary.”

 Some of us are so careless with the truth that nothing can be believed which is said by such bullies and cowards.

 We comprise a”Christian Cosa Nostra.”

 “They have established all of the accouterments of a denominational structure.”

 We are liars and have a “frightening mind set.”

 The board of GOT Foundation wants to “take over” the churches and “make decisions for them.”

 The editor wants to “drive people out of the church.”

 We have a “museum mentality” about the church.

 “They have succumbed to the ordinary human desire to build some-thing larger than a simple, independent, church of Christ.”

 We believe the universal church is made up of local churches.

All of the above is in the editorial. We are also treated to a poem “Diotrephes Is Living,” articles on “The New Denominationalism,” “The Peaceable Kingdom,” “The New Catholicism,” “Making Sense of Romans 14,” “How Shall We Treat Brethren With Whom We Disagree?”, “Edomites Among Us” and inserts on “Watchdogs of the Lord” and an excerpt from a personal letter from Mike Willis to Frank Walton.

Who Are These Men?

Since I serve on the foundation board and am also the Associate-Editor of the paper, I think I know something about the men with whom I work. The Guardian of Truth Foundation is heavily involved in the publishing business. The bulk of our time in meetings is taken up in plans to that end. The nine-man board is made up of Connie W. Adams, Alan Birdwell, O.C. Birdwell, Jr., Dickey Cooper, Fred Pollock, Weldon E. Warnock, Mike Willis, Steve Wolfgang, and Ron Halbrook. Four of these men are business men while the others are gospel preachers. They are honorable men who would not even entertain the idea of trying to structure the church of our Lord into a denomination. All are faithful Christians who are members of local churches where they live.

There are twenty-seven staff writers in addition to Mike Willis and myself. They are: J. Wiley Adams, Donald P. Ames, O.C. Birdwell, Jr., Dick Blackford, Edward Bragwell, Paul J. Casebolt, Bill Cavender, Bob Dickey, Johnie Edwards, Harold Fite, Larry Hafley, Ron Halbrook, Clinton D. Hamilton, Irvin Himmel, Olen Holderby, Frank Jamerson, Daniel H. King, Aude McKee, Harry Osborne, H.E. Phillips, Donnie V. Rader, Tom Roberts, Weldon E. Warnock, Lewis Willis, Bobby Witherington, and Steve Wolfgang. With the exception of two men in their mid-tolate thirties, the rest are men between the ages of 50 and 80. Many have preached over fifty years and several of them for more than forty years.

Now, why name these men? Brother Chappelear charged staff writers with immorality without naming the accused. He said, “Because I do not believe in gossip under the shallow guise of journalism, I will not name names.” No instead, he engaged in innuendo and left twenty-nine men under a cloud of suspicion with his readers. The men he accused repented many years ago for their sins and made corrections with the churches involved. What is now the point of bringing that up except to slander the paper? Anyone who thinks the paper has coddled immorality has not read it with much understanding and knows very little about those of us who carry on this work.

Why name these board members? Because the board has been accused of laying the groundwork for a new denomination. There is not one word of truth in that. It is slander, pure and simple. Not one of these men believes the universal church is made up of local churches. I call on brother Chappelear to apologize for this unwarranted attack and to repent of his sin.

Should GOT Be Criticized?

Absolutely! We are all finite men. Do I think errors have been made in dealing with issues in the past? Certainly. I did not always agree with editorial judgment in handling some things when Cecil Willis was editor and since Mike Willis has taken on that work. I edited a paper for twenty years and I know for a fact that there are difficult problems to handle and in spite of the best advice you can get, blunders will be made. When Searching The Scriptures went out of business at the end of 1992, I was invited to write for GOT as the Associate-Editor and also to serve on the board of the Foundation. I gladly accepted both responsibilities. I had worked as a staff writer for Truth Magazine for eight years prior to editing Searching The Scriptures. Before I agreed to these roles, I met with these men and very frankly discussed a number of things. I came on board with the understanding that I would be at liberty to write what I wanted to say without any muzzle, even to taking issue with the editor or any staff writer.

I have written in opposition to the “Questionnaire.” Brother Chappelear said that the editor had called this an “expedient” and then said, “Was the expediency opposed? Of course not.” My brother, I opposed it, face to face and by letter to those who issued it and then I wrote an article in GOT on the subject which the editor carried without change. I have written other articles taking issue with things which have appeared in the paper. I have not been censored and when the time comes that I am, that will be the end of my work here.

Brother Chappelear’s Files

An attack was made on writers for an “enemies list” and a file to use against others. Yet, lo and behold, right in the middle of page 12 of this issue of Sentry there is a box with a quote from a letter from Mike Willis to Frank Walton, a letter dated December 8, 1993. How did a personal letter from Mike Willis to Frank Walton get into the hands of Floyd Chappelear? Floyd lives in Virginia and Frank lives in Arizona. Has brother Floyd kept this on file? Was this an “enemies list”? Brethren have a habit of keeping files of personal correspondence. That is one thing. To compile a dossier on a brother in order to attack him later down the road is something else. I have written in GOT in opposition to brethren swapping personal correspondence all over the country. I do not practice it and do not wish to be on the receiving end of such traded goods. Was there some collusion between these two men? Some power structure in embryo involving two papers?

“That Bunch”

In traveling over the country in meetings, I meet many people who read GOT and express great appreciation for it. But I also meet a few, usually preachers, who want to know, “How did you ever get involved with that bunch?” Subsequent conversation usually brings out the word “pharisees,” “legalists,” the notion of power mongers, and this very notion expressed by brother Chappelear “the Cosa Nostra.” There is a perception among some preachers that there is something sinister, underhanded, and grossly evil about what we are doing. What feeds this idea? I do not know. But I can tell you as one involved in both the work of the paper and the Foundation, that any such concept is far from reality. The paper has always been militant. Its writers have always dealt forcefully with what has been perceived to be error both without and within. But with very few exceptions (and there have been a few), the issue has been addressed without trying to discredit the men advancing the error. The charge that we have slandered an “aged luminary” is false. I have read every word that has been written in this paper and several others dealing with the position advocated by our beloved brother, Homer Hailey, now well advanced in years. If anyone has slandered him personally, I am not aware of it. The charge is false and is itself slanderous. His position, advocated both orally and in his book, has been opposed and correctly represented. His character has never been assailed and I would be among the first to react in outrage if it were.

“I Do Not Question Their Sincerity”

Our brother tries so hard to appear gracious while he challenges the very character of those connected with GOT. He said, “I do not question their sincerity.” Yet, on the same page he called us a “Christian Cosa Nostra” and said of one staff writer that “he needs desperately to learn to tell the truth” and then described him as a “bully” and a “coward.” So, here we have a “sincere” brother who can’t tell the truth and who is both a bully and a coward. But in spite of those liabilities, he is “sincere.” I dread the day when brother Chappelear takes off his gloves and decides that we are not sincere.

How Comfortable?

Are the brethren whose articles were published in this edition comfortable with the use made of their material? Do they wish to join in with brother Chappelear in the serious charges he has laid down?

Gossip and Foundation Business

Since brother Chappelear does not believe in gossip, how did he become privy to information which concerns our publishing work? Since he reports about commentary writers and others connected with the commentary series, how did he gain such information and is he certain that he has the story straight? I am very pleased to be a part of the process in the commentary project. It is a massive under-taking involving many writers over a period of several years (probably 15 years at best). The six commentaries which are now in print are excellent works which constitute worthy additions to anyone’s library. We do not think it necessary to screen every decision about writers, format, doctrinal problems in the text, or other business judgments through brother Chappelear or anyone else unrelated to the project. It strikes me that there is a considerable amount of gossip being traded and some who are all too eager to hear it and report it. Would those who have lectured us on love, kindness, respect and honor in dealing with each other, please take this into consideration?

What Shall We Do With Criticism?

All who write in a public forum are subject to review. That goes with the territory. All of us ought to act responsibly “in the spirit of meekness, lest thou (we) also be tempted” (Gal. 6:1-3). But criticism ought to be taken to heart. Is there some validity to it? What changes should be made to correct our course? Is it possible to attack the man and not his doctrine? Do we appear to be cold, harsh and uncaring? Do we tolerate some errors while exposing others? These are legitimate questions and I personally will take them to heart.

But Enough Is Enough

While brother Chappelear has every right to oppose what he believes to be error, he has no right to leave a cloud of suspicion over forty men who deserve better treatment than the September 30, 1996 edition of Sentry Magazine has administered. I for one, am not going to stand for it. It is time to call the hand of this editor. He needs to repent and apologize. We are waiting.

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 21, p. 3-4
November 7, 1996

By Donald P. Ames

In John 20:30-31, John says, “And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.” In these two verses, he affirms some things that deserve our attention.

First, he notes “these are written.” He did not want people to rely on memory or rumors, which might fade (or grow) with the passing of time. He was an eyewitness (see also 1 John 1:1), and wanted to be sure the report was accurately preserved for others. This he could do with the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 16:13; 1 Cor. 2:13; 2 Tim. 3:16). So this valuable record has been preserved, accurately, and in detail for all to be able to read!

It was written to convince. That means it was adequate to do the job!

That was John’s purpose  to produce a record adequate to convince us of the great truth that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God! He didn’t have to record everything that Jesus did, but he did record an ad-equate record of the important facts we need. Nicodemus recognized the evidence was there and adequate (John 3:2), as did the man who was born blind (John 9:32). Jesus appealed to his works as proof of his deity (John 5:36; 10:25, 36-37), and also to his character as well (John 8:46). John’s record will stand! So will the test! He mentions such details as the folded face cloth (John 20:7  who would bother to do this if they were stealing the body before the soldiers caught them?), the de-lay Jesus intended before raising Lazarus (John 11:39), and the convincing appearance to Thomas (John 20:2428). These were the same proofs (along with fulfilled prophecy) that Paul used to convince the Jews (Acts 9:22; 17:3). Yes, we have all we need to do the task God has given us!

Not only can it demonstrate these truths, but John in-tended for us to believe! That means he wrote these truthsso we could understand them, become convinced of the validity of his arguments, and form some convictions as a result. Indeed, if the “common people” could understand Jesus’ message (Mark 12:37), we are without excuse if we “neglect so great a salvation” (Heb. 2:3).

Sometimes people reason, “But you have to have the Holy Spirit before you can understand God’s truths.” Did the “common people”? (Mark 12:37). Those of Samaria heard, believed, and obeyed (Acts 8:12-13) before they ever got the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:16)! Those of Berea “searched the Scriptures daily” and as a result, “many of them believed.” It doesn’t say the Holy Spirit had already saved them, then guided their understanding to a fuller comprehension. John wrote so we might examine, reason over the evidence, and become convinced from the written record! Paul affirmed, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16) and that “faith comes by hearing . . . the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). John had this very motive in mind when he wrote his gospel record.

Lastly, as a result of believing, “you may have life in his name.” Not all believers, however, went on to enjoy eternal life. Some preferred the praises of men (John 12:42-43; cf. Matt. 10:32-33). Judas fell away and became the “son of perdition” (John 17:12). But those who believed were granted the right “to become” children of God (John 1:12; cf. Gal. 3:26-27 to get “the rest of the story”). John didn’t write just to shut the mouths of the opposition, but to convince and to save. This is the same purpose we are to have (see 2 Tim. 2:24-26; 1 Pet. 3:15; 2 Tim. 3:16). Sometimes it becomes necessary to shut the mouths of the opposition, knowing they have no intentions of ever obeying the truth (cf. Acts 13:6-12), but let us always strive to have the same goal John had in our preaching  and not just to “skin the sects.”

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 21, p. 13
November 7, 1996

 

Dear Aristobulus:

Our beloved brother Paul is no longer with us; but being assured that his writings are understandable (Eph. 3:4), I will do all I can, as an uninspired secretary, to answer your letter. Paul would surely appreciate the spirit of your comments and the desire to know truth.

Romans 14:1 tells us to receive “one who is weak in the faith,” and we must identify such an one by information found in the context and confirmed by the teaching of Scriptures as a whole. God has received him (v. 3), and he is a servant of God (v. 4), but he believes he must eat (only) herbs (v. 2), and he esteems meats to be unclean (v. 14). While so believing (subjective “faith”) if he should eat meat, he would violate his conscience and this would “destroy” him (v. 15).

But was it wrong, per se to eat meat? No! Paul says meat was not unclean “of itself ” (v. 14). He called meat eating “good” (v. 16) and the meat eater was the “strong” one, while the herb eater was “weak”(v. 2; 15:1). The strong should bear the infirmities of the weak, leading to his “edification” (15:2) so that eventually they could “with one mind and one mouth glorify God” (15:6). Paul contributed to that “edification” by his teaching on meats here and elsewhere.

The herb eater lacked a clear understanding of what God said about meats, but he was “fully convinced” (assured) in his own mind (14:5) that he was doing what God wanted done. The illustrations of “days” and “meats” make this point (v. 6). “He who eats, eats to the Lord .. . and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat.” In his determination to eat only what he thought the Lord wanted him to eat, the herb eater showed strong subjective faith toward God. So, with reference to your “First” comment, it seems both the meat eater and the herb eater were “fully assured” in their subjective faith. The herb eater was commended and deserved patient consideration for this, not for his misunderstanding concerning meats.

Regarding your “Second” comment, both the meat eater and the herb eater acted, as you say, “conscientiously.” But Paul is our best example to show this does not guarantee right conclusions (cf. Acts 23:1; 26:9). Paul was concerned that both know the truth about meat (see above), but it is apparent “receiving each other” took precedence over meats and days. You correctly observe (paragraph 4) that Paul and other inspired men teach us to “mark . . . and avoid” those who teach false doctrine, such as instrumental music or polygamy (your illustrations). It is therefore apparent “meats” and “days” of Romans 14 are in a different category than these and were not regarded by Paul to be of such consequences as to war-rant “mark . . . and avoid” (16:17). They may be called matters of indifference  but with caution.

Paul said, “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything” (Gal. 5:6); yet he circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3), but strongly resisted efforts to have Titus circumcised (Gal. 2:3-5). Conceivably, the herb eater could press his convictions upon the congregation, or the meat eater could stress his “rights” to the disruption of peace and fellowship. One’s regard for a day” could promote a totally unacceptable situation (Gal. 4:10-11). Paul wanted the truth taught regarding meats and days, but such “issues” could be overshadowed by strike if handled in an ungodly manner (2 Tim. 2:23f).

In your “Third” comment, by considering “faith” exclusively in a subjective sense, you overlook the fact that the set of conscience is determined by the level of one’s knowledge. “There is not in everyone that knowledge; for some with conscience of the idol. . .” (1 Cor. 8:7-11). Paul could persecute Christians in good conscience only because he did not know better. When he was convinced that Jesus was the Christ the setting of his conscience changed  and that is exactly what would happen when the herb eater accepted the truth regarding meats. Paul urges those with knowledge to be patient with those who lack understanding in certain matters of indifference, but who do what they do because they sincerely believe God wants it so.

“The faith” is used forty-two times in the New Testament with “faith” often in the noun form and eleven times in the exact form of Romans 14:1, referring to what is believed rather than to the act of believing. Check Jude 3, Galatians 3:23, and Acts 13:7-10. In Romans 14:1 the herb eater was strong in subjective faith (or conscience) but was weak in his understanding regarding meats.

You acknowledge “each has been received by the Lord when each obeyed the gospel.” Note it was not when they obeyed error “in good conscience.” Their continued reception by the Lord hinges upon their continuing desire for truth (1 Pet. 2:1-2), even in these matters of indifference. We are to encourage and assist one another to better know truth  all truth  and never adopt the concept that a good conscience relieves one of the need to “prove all things.”

Your problem with “May-pole dancing” seems like a typical illustration of the “meats and days” principle, but one could promote creedalism by listing modem conducts for this category. Unity is not achieved by creeds. If we will cultivate the love and concern for our brethren that Paul advocates in Romans 14, we can be of “one mind and one accord” in our “press toward the mark . . .” and herein lies the only “perfection” we can attain in this life (Phil. 3:13-15).

Yours in quest for truth,

Secretarius

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 21, p. 11-12
November 7, 1996

By Dick Blackford

No fireworks! No Elvis impersonators! No antique car shows! No gimmicks!

All of these have been sponsored by churches in our area, but the church of Christ at 516 Rocky Point Road just wants to be a church after the New Testament order. All we offer is the gospel, without addition or subtraction. Our goal is to specialize in just being a church, not a club. Sometimes men mix the social gospel with the true, thereby diluting it. There is a difference between the pure gospel and the modern social gospel, which is really another gospel (Gal.1:6-10).

The Lord’s church was given a three-fold work to do. 1. Its primary mission is to evangelize. It is the “pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim.3:15; 1 Thess. 1:8). 2. It also has the responsibility to teach and train its own members so they may grow to maturity (Eph. 4:12). 3. And it was given the work of benevolence (Acts 6:1-6).

Christ’s mission was to save souls for eternity. He made a clear distinction between the sacred (what came from heaven) and the secular (what came from men). If it came from men, it had no heavenly authority (Mark 11:30). The responsibility of recreation and entertainment was never given to the church. Men have so blended the sacred and the secular that it is difficult to distinguish them. Inspiration cautions us “not to go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).

Do you feel insulted if a church thinks the only way they can keep you faithful to God is with food, entertainment and recreation? Do you desire to associate with those who simply want to worship God because they love him and Jesus died for them?

It is refreshing to meet folks who want to go back to the Bible and just be the church Jesus built. That is our goal. We hope you will make it yours! Won’t you come and investigate?

Guardian of Truth XL: No. 21, p. 12
November 7, 1996