Truth Magazine

By Leslie Diestelkamp

Question: In this, the middle of the Twentieth Century, has the Lord’s church out-grown controversy? Of course there are some who do engage in controversy. Some may do so only for the sake of controversy, and others may do so out of pure motives. Some may be fighting for self, and some may desire to stand in defense of truth. Many may engage in controversy with a kind and gentle spirit, while others may do so with a spirit of bitterness and malice.

However, the usual cry is “Peace, peace. ” Sometimes this is a cry for “Peace at any price.” It seems that some of the Lord’s people would rather have peace than to have truth and right if these can only be had in and through controversy. Some seem to be ashamed of an argument about the Scripture and have become so completely overwhelmed by pacifism that they will allow a soul to be lost in ignorance rather than earnestly discuss the Bible with him and they will allow the church to be led into error rather than “contend earnestly for the faith” (Jude 3) with brethren.

This spirit of non-controversy manifests itself in several ways, some of which we shall mention.

Be Altogether Positive

A few deny that there is value in negative teaching. Many minimize the value of such. Perhaps a majority simply overemphasize the positive, and thus de-emphasize the negative. It is not my intention to suggest that our teaching should be of a negative nature most of the time. Rather, the essence of the gospel of Christ is a positive message, and the one who teaches truth will not fail to devote most of his time, energy and ability to the proclamation of the high and holy demands of the positive word. On the other hand, the preacher or teacher who avoids the negative, will fail to impress upon his hearers (or readers) the whole truth, and those who give heed to what he teaches will undoubtedly fail to harmonize their lives with the will of God, and will evidently receive a false conception of the gospel.

When the negative is minimized the following things, at least, will result: (1) The use of mechanical instruments of music in worship will become a matter of little concern, even to people who worship where such are not used. This is seen by those of us who live in large cities, who observe the action of Christians who come from faithful churches but who drift (and sometimes gladly plunge) into the Christian Church when they move. The church where the mechanical instrument is not opposed openly and frankly and often is due for a rude awakening as soon as many of its members leave the home community. (2) Dancing, petting, drinking intoxicants, etc. will characterize the lives of members of the church even if they are taught to “keep thyself pure” and to “keep oneself unspotted from the world.” By being completely positive it is probably impossible to get youngsters to see any sin in dancing. If gospel preachers follow the lead of denominational preachers, and confine their lessons on moral matters to entirely positive messages, we can expect the Lord’s people to condone dancing and petting because they do not oppose lasciviousness, and to overlook lasciviousness because they do not actually abhor fornication!

To be positive is fine and is in harmony with truth. To be altogether positive (or altogether negative either) is to be wrong and unscriptural. A proper balance in preaching and teaching (and in our attitude) will enable us to attain that which God expects and to avoid that which he condemns. Let us beware if our own attitude is one that causes us to be displeased with negative teaching. Even a casual reading of the New Testament will enable us to see that, though its message for us is primarily a positive one, much of its instruction for us is couched in negative language. Let us also be aware that a denial of the proper value of negative teaching is an almost certain indication of the influence of modernism in our religion.

Consider Only One Side

Another angle of the non-controversial idea is to refuse to hear, read or allow to be presented, both sides of a matter. For instance, often some brother expresses great admiration for a certain paper published by brethren, explaining that he likes it so much because it doesn’t allow controversy upon its pages. The fact of the matter is that usually that paper may be almost filled with controversial material, but that it will only print one side of such controversy. It is not at all uncommon for a paper which is styled as noncontroversial, but which really is one-sided, to have perhaps five articles, three or four of which are highly controversial. Yet some brethren are made happy because there is no argument (they say) in it. But whoever gives a reason for his beliefs, presents an argument. However the tendency toward pacifism today, among Christians, causes many to insist that only one side of an argument be presented.

When we refuse to consider both sides of an argument, we are like the proverbial ostrich, and such a closed-mind policy will likely cause us, at times to be the blind one whom another blind one leads. The only safe course is to allow every issue to be tested in open discussion, either orally or printed; for the lesson that does not challenge the opponents of truth has missed its mark, and the one that cannot stand thorough investigation does not deserve serious consideration.

Brethren everywhere lament the action of denominational people who refuse to openly discuss issues, but at the same time such brethren will often refuse to give consideration to those issues that prevail among God’s people. Furthermore, when brethren do have discussions with denominational people, they do so without malice, usually, and stoutly affirm their friendship for those with whom they differ. Yet, significantly, when brethren differ they usually manifest a spirit of ill-will that borders upon hate for one another.

It is my intention herein to beg for two things: (1) Open, frequent and candid discussion of those things that trouble brethren; (2) and a spirit of brotherly kindness, compassion and patience in such discussions, whether they be oral or written.

The Test of Controversy

The Holy Spirit says, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). But how can a thing actually be proved without controversy of some kind? The actual controversy may be one that only rages in our mind, when we place one argument against another, or it may be a friendly discussion between friends and/or brethren. On the other hand, a thing may sometimes best be proved true or untrue by public, oral discussion, or by written debate. At any rate that which we read or hear, and believe without a fair and accurate test, is only an assumption. And, to assume such to be truth is to risk our soul’s destiny upon uncertainty. The only fair and safe course, in view of our never-dying soul and of the eternal reward or punishment, is to be sure that all that we believe and practice is adequately, advisedly and ambitiously tested in the crucible of controversy.

To refuse controversy is usually not a sign of humility but of weakness, and to decline controversy may be an indication of cowardice rather than meekness. The supposed sweet spirit of non-controversy breeds ignorance, prejudice and bigotry. By-products of this attitude will be compromise, sectarianism and apostasy.

There are those who count the baptisms reported today and boast of accomplishments in this new day when debate is unpopular and when an argument is discouraged. They say that we have arrived at the time when those things are not needed to get results. It is affirmed that the church is growing more and more than ever before in modern times, and all of this without the controversy of former days. However we should always keep in mind that experts in that field say that from 80 to 90 percent of the baptisms today come from the Bible study classes. This simply means that most “growth” today is from families already in the church, and that little progress, comparatively, is being made toward converting people of the denominational world. It can hardly be denied that fewer denominational people are being converted today than in the early days of the restoration. Why? Could not one reason be that there is less controversy with them? Furthermore, take note of successes in foreign field: Where have greatest successes been seen? Usually, and with perhaps a few exceptions like Nigeria, by far the greatest success is in the place where opposition has been great and therefore controversy has been a prominent part of the work. The work in Italy is a real example of this, for there, under the stress and strain of argument and discussion, hundreds have been baptized who have remained faithful, indicating real conviction which was usually produced in the face of strong opposition. On the other hand, if one wants to see an exhibit of weakness, it may usually be easily found in those places where baptisms have not been preceded by long, hard struggles with conscience, with conviction, and with truth.

Disagree Without Being Disagreeable

The non-controversial spirit which, in some places, is choking all the vitality, vim and vigor out of the Lord’s church, may simply be the result of a mis-conception – supposition that those who differ must divide and that when we disagree we must be disagreeable. Some people forbid controversy because they say love forbids it. However, this is shallow thinking. In the first place, real love for a person demands that we get the truth to that person if at all possible, even if we do take the chance of losing his friendship. Furthermore, love for truth requires that we declare it firmly, fully and faithfully. To keep back part of the truth is to make the remaining part a lie. Likewise, that truth which is declared in a compromising spirit is a weakened, diluted and, at least to a great extent, an impotent truth.

If the church must grow without constant controversy, then it must cease to follow the greatest controversialist of all time, Jesus Christ. His every thought, word and deed brought him into open and severe conflict with Satan and Satan’s servants. If the followers of Christ today find themselves in less conflict than he, perhaps it is because they do not possess the “spirit of Christ,” which spirit will motivate lives and words everyone of which will be an open challenge to Satan and Satan’s servants.

Let us then take “The sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God,” and fight faithfully the good fight of faith, with fidelity.

(These words by brother Diestelkamp, whose positive contribution to the cause of Christ cannot be successfully denied, are just as relevant in 1992 as they were when they first appeared in Truth Magazine in November 1957.)

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 16, pp. 496-497
August 20, 1992

By Steve Wolfgang

Footnote: Richard John Neuhaus, ed. Theological Education and Moral Formation (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992), pp. 146-147.

Richard John Neuhaus, editor of the conservative journal First Things, also edits the Encounter Series of volumes published by Eerdmans, of which this is volume 15. Readers of this journal might also be interested in other volumes in the series, particularly volume 2 (Unsecular America) and volume 5 (The Bible, Politics, and Democracy).

Typically, each volume reports a conference in which four to six featured speakers delivered prepared addresses, following which those speakers and perhaps a dozen others joined in a panel discussion of the issues raised in the prepared speeches.

This particular volume reports a conference at Duke University and offers some rare insight into the state of the denominational mentality in America, and I offer excerpts from three different sections of the round-table discussion for your amazement.

Philip Turner, Dean of Berkeley Divinity School, Yale University, speaking of the crisis of authority in the Episcopal church:

“My wife is a priest. In her diocese recently there was another priest who got into New Age channeling. One day she announced that her particular spirit had informed her that Jesus didn’t really die; he married a druid princess, and they had a little druids. This was the content of this priest’s teaching to a group in her church, The senior warden of the parish thought that maybe something was wrong, so he called the bishop. The bishop, bless his heart, told the priest that she had three choices: she could recant, she could resign her orders, or she could undergo a heresy trial. Well, the bishop is the one who took the flak, because the dominant reaction was, ‘We’re Episcopalians, so we can believe what we want, and a bishop has no rights here.”‘

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 16, p. 490
August 20, 1992

By Mark White

Many of our brethren across the country are sore distressed by the state of affairs in churches of Christ today. To say that many churches are undergoing change is a gross understatement of the situation. Radical changes in thought toward the authority of the Scriptures are allowing many churches of Christ to take even more liberal views toward the work and worship of the church. With the “New Hermeneutic” as their license (which denies that the New Testament reveals a pattern for our organization, work and worship) the movers and shakers of the institutional churches of Christ are leading their people toward the wholesale acceptance of a myriad of innovations and compromises with denominationalism. Our brethren are rethinking such issues as instrumental music and the role of women in the leadership and worship of the church. Additionally, many brethren area abandoning “book, chapter and verse” preaching and teaching for a modernistic higher criticism that seized the pulpits of denominational churches many years ago. Moral issues such as social drinking, mixed swimming, divorce and remarriage, immodest dress, etc. are no longer dealt with in sermons lest we appear too strict and legalistic. Even the plan of salvation is under serious attack, for many leading, influential elders, preachers, and professors are not too sure that there is a “plan” as we have always preached it. Baptism is being re-thought and re-hashed in many circles, and it appears that before long the necessity of immersion for the remission of sins may become a bone of contention in some churches of Christ.

Within many of the churches troubled by these issues are some brethren who sense strongly that the church is “leaving” them. They see these changes for what they are apostasy – but it is so hard to break long-standing ties with friends and family and leave such rank infidelity to the Lord Jesus Christ and his will. They know the church is not what it should be, nor is it even moving in that direction. The preaching is no longer distinctive, and could be served up in any denominational pulpit in town. They have tried to warn the elders, the preacher, their friends and anyone who will listen. But they are considered “old-fashioned,” “non-progressive,” and even “anti.” Eventually, the elders no longer listen to them. The preacher berates them for trying to hold on to a “1950 mentality.” Each passing week brings more compromise, more innovation, and more liberalism. What must they do if the tide cannot be stemmed?

A Case in Point

King Jeroboam of Israel introduced the apostate worship of idolatrous golden calves in an effort to keep the northern tribes from going to Jerusalem for worship (1 Kgs. 12:26-33). He even appointed non-Levites to his new “priesthood.” Not being able to squelch the apostasy, many Levites had no other recourse but to leave Israel and flee to Judah (2 Chron. 11:13-17). Remaining faithful to God meant separating from their homes and friends with whom they had previously worshipped. Doubtless it was painful to do this, but it resulted in the strengthening of Judah (v. 17). Men and women who stand for the truth always strengthen the people of God who are like-minded.

When John heard the announcement of the imminent destruction of “Babylon,” he heard another angel warn, “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive her plagues. For her sins have reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities” (Rev. 18:4,5). While opinions vary regarding what “Babylon” is in this symbolic passage, the warning is clear that God’s people must flee from Babylon or perish with her. Even Lot was warned to leave Sodom or be destroyed with the wicked city (Gen. 19:13-14). It is no different today. God’s faithful people must no longer tolerate apostasy.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 16, p. 491
August 20, 1992

By David E. Discus

Lately, there seems to be more and more evidence that many of the followers of the liberal persuasion are becoming quite apprehensive about the direction that liberalism is taking. Some would like to scale back some of the trends in their liberal activity, but they are at a loss to know how to go about it. Of course they could make a complete about face and stop it all but this would be out of the question. This would make “Antis” out of them and everyone knows that this is a dirty word. It is starting to dawn on them that they have created a monster which is leading them into complete apostasy, if it has not already done so. It is as if they are on run away roller coaster and they would like to stop it and get off.

Recently, this correspondent acquired a copy of a monthly bulletin from a local congregation which strongly supports liberalism. In it was a very impressive article entitled Dangers and Advice. It was written by a preacher who has been advocating liberality around Chattanooga for many years. Much of the discourse dealt with some of the same problems we of the conservative persuasion have been cautioning them about all along. The article had some sound scriptural advice and would fit very nicely in some of our conservative papers as far as it went. The only problem was that this author shunned to declare all the counsel (Acts 20:27) and stopped short of calling attention to some of the major causes of the dilemma they now find themselves in.

The article started out by quoting our beloved old modern patriarch, brother N.B. Hardeman, on his fear of the direction that the church was heading 50-55 years ago. (Be aware that this was before liberalism had gained any sort of a foothold. – DED) According to the article, when asked what dangers he saw in the Church in his day, brother Hardeman replied:

1. A lack of Bible knowledge and a light regard with what it says.

2. A tendency to make the church a social club or entertainment center.

3. A disposition to compromise the truth and discourage sound preaching.

4. A love for the praise of men more than the praise of God, lest they should be put out of someone’s social circle.

Using these four points as a basis, our liberal author commented on how the church seemed to be drifting toward apostasy by trying to be like all the nations (1 Sam. 8:20). He said “we” are getting away from the simplicity of the Bible, and preachers are doing more lecturing instead of preaching. He pointed out that worldliness in the church is wide spread, and that emphasis on entertainment was turning it into a social club.

It is evident that this author is not fully informed about brother Hardeman’s position on liberalism. It has been this writer’s understanding that he opposed any sort of organization that collected funds from other congregations and Christians to do the work that the Bible assigned to the local congregation and/or its members. This would include such things as a sponsoring congregation, Board of Elders, or any structure doing work reserved for the local church and its members. It was his belief that there is no scriptural precedent for these things. Also, that it gives the individual a false sense of security that he has fulfilled his responsibilities as a Christian, when he drops his contribution into the collection plate.

About 150 years ago, the Church of Christ and the Christian Church divided over what most people consider the instrumental music question. What has not been as well publicized, was this concept of a centralized headquarters designed to collect and dispurse funds for missionary work (Reference – Christian Missionary Society). It is hard to understand why institutional people cannot see that this is nothing more than history repeating itself. On the other hand, maybe it is to be expected. It is rumored that some “ultra-liberals” are now advocating a merger with the Christian Church.

Brother Hardeman expressed a fear that the day would come when Christian colleges would accept and/or solicit congregational funds. That day has arrived. In fact as you look at the many institutional practices today it seems that most anything goes. As indicated above, the institutional element is rapidly becoming just like any other denomination.

Just as in all digressive movements, the changes did not come all at once. Rather, they occurred slowly at first but gathered speed over the years. It all began with the seemingly innocent concept of the Herald of Truth and today it has evolved into a multimillion dollar boondoggle of one nation under God. Once the barriers were broken down there was no stopping the movement. It will continue to gather momentum until what is claimed to be the church that Christ built will no longer resemble New Testament specifications. Could this be the “lack of Bible knowledge and a light regard with what it says” that brother Hardeman had in mind? Or is it his “disposition to compromise the truth and discourage sound doctrine”?

Our author quoted brother Hardeman as saying there was a tendency to make the church into a social club or entertainment center. Yet in the same bulletin in which is article appeared, the number of announcements of social events for the congregation exceeded the announcements about worship services. It is doubtful that he was even aware of this inconsistency. This writer does not wish to sound vindictive nor to single out any specific congregation, but this particular example just happened to be readily available. It is highly typical of the situation as it exists among institutional churches today.

Items number 3 and 4 of the quotes from brother Hardeman should present little cause for friction between conservatives and liberals. It seems conservative brethren are just as guilty as liberals. Both groups have members who tend to compromise the truth and discourage sound preaching, and both have their share of individuals who seek the praise of men rather than the praise of God. This is a common problem about which neither group can afford to point an accusing finger. Rather they ought to be quick to welcome suggestions that would improve the situation. Most conservative advocates, who have ignored the praise of men and spoken out against liberalism, certainly know what it means to be put out of the social circle of the liberals. This was/and is a powerful ploy used against anyone who refused(s) to go along with the concepts of liberality. In fact it was this attitude that gave rise to the demeaning term “anti.” Brother Hardeman’s fear was justified. Social pressure did become a powerful tool that caused untold numbers of Christians to walk the primrose path of liberalism.

The author of Dangers and Signs ended his article with the old plea that we go back to the Bible and the Bible alone. That we speak where the Bible speaks and remain silent where it is silent. This is indeed very excellent advice. However, if he applies the Bible and the Bible alone to the concepts of Liberalism, he is going to have to remain silent. He will not find any scriptural justification for his liberal activity. This has always been (and still is) a major argument of the people who oppose liberalism.

If, indeed, the assumption that the liberal persuasion is becoming apprehensive about their movement, it is curious that they have not come forward with any ideas as to how solve the problems. Do they suggest that some of their practices be discontinued? If so which ones or how many? Do they plan any cut backs on social functions or organizations supplementing the local congregation? Just what would they be willing to concede? It is indeed strange that we never hear any concrete suggestions that would help to alleviate their problems. Like the Bereans of old, would they be willing to receive the word with all readiness of mind and search the scriptures daily to see whether these things are so (Acts 17:11)?

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 16, pp. 501-503
August 20, 1992