Truth Magazine

By Ben F. Vick, Jr.

In the January 3 issue of Guardian of Truth, a scion born from the union of two papers, Gospel Guardian and Truth Magazine, brother Larry Ray Hafley wrote an article reviewing a pamphlet on the African Christian Hospitals Foundation. In his article he compared the foundation in question with the missionary society. He also suggested that the same scriptural justification which would allow such a foundation would also favor a veterinary clinic, a recreation foundation; and again he makes an attempt to place the orphan homes and homes for the aged into the same category.

First, I do not know much about the African Christian Hospitals Foundation, other than what was in the article by Hafley. Since, it is not wise to commit one’s self in the dark, I cannot give a full assessment of it, based on the Scriptures. However, there were some questions and parallels which brother Hafley raised which need to be addressed.

Brother Hafley tells us that, because the African Christian Hospitals Foundation is “an organization separate and apart from the church, which is designed to do the work God assigned to the church,” it is unauthorized, just as the missionary society is. Well, let’s apply that same reasoning to the Guardian of Truth. Is it an organization, separate and apart from the church, designed to do the work God assigned to the church? It is a separate organization from the church. It has a board of directors. (Incidentally, where in the New Testament does one read of a board of directors for a paper? Inquiring minds want to know.) The editor, Mike Willis, tells us “Published twice monthly, Guardian of Truth contains excellent teaching articles written by some of the best preachers among us. It contains news of what is happening among Christians, advertising of places to worship when traveling, inspiring articles, teaching articles, and other material designed to help the Christian grow.” Now, does that should like the work of the church? If so, on what basis? Anti brethren need to wrestle with these concepts and questions. Inquiring minds want to know.

Do brother Hafley and these connected with GOT believe the concept of schools and colleges operated by individual Christians is scriptural? We would all stand opposed to the abuses of these schools, but is the concept scriptural? I would defend the concept that these schools have a right to exist as an adjunct of the home (Eph. 6:4; Gal. 4:1-2). I am not discussing the means of their support. Perhaps he and I would agree that individuals can support the school, but the church is not authorized to do so. Would Hafley take the position which Daniel Sommer at one time held, until late in his life; i.e., that the Bible College is unscriptural? If not, then, is the school or college an organization, separate and apart from the church, attempting to do the work God assigned the church to do? Now, brother Hafley, “root, hog, or die” in answering your own article! Inquiring minds want to know.

Brother Hafley asked, “Could Boles Home and Schultz-Lewis Children’s Home [sic] promote mission work as well as benevolent work and ‘avoid being’ a missionary society if they insisted that each missionary was sent by a sponsoring church?” I will happily comply with the brother’s request, if he will first answer this question: Could Hafley’s private home promote mission work as well as benevolent work and ‘avoid being’ a missionary society? The very argument which Hafley and others make in opposing the orphan homes can with equal and telling force be made against the private home. Give me the exception! Inquiring minds want to know.

It seems almost never to fail that when our anti brethren begin to speak or write they have the proclivity to lump all brethren to the left of them on the same pile. Those who eat in the building are lumped with those who build fellowship halls, gymnasiums and provide recreation for their members. But each is “poisoning the wells” to prejudice the minds of the readers. I, personally, resent that tactic. If I were not interested in practicing the golden rule, I would lump all anti-literature, anti-classes, anti-women teachers, anti-multiple container, anti-sponsoring church arrangement, and anti-orphan home brethren into the same category. This same tactic is one which was used by Ketcherside and Garrett and is still used by Rubel Shelly.

Brother Hafley says, “The truth is that there is no scriptural authority for churches to fund organizations which are established to do the work God gave the church to do. That is true in evangelism and benevolence. ” This would eliminate churches funding Guardian of Truth and the private home’s teaching the Bible. It would also mean that, given the view that the church is to care for the fatherless, then it must provide recreation and social events for them. Does the church where Hafley preaches provide these things for the fatherless and widows? What about any of the churches where the Board of Directors for GOT attend? Inquiring minds want to know.

Brother Hafley waxes eloquently in placing the blame for the condition of the church at the present time upon faithful brethren of the past who defended the sponsoring church arrangement and the orphan homes. His reasoning is that if brethren had not defended the right for such to exist, then the church would not have gone into the entertainment business, building gymnasiums and providing recreation as it presently has. He avows, “But Fifth and Highland in Abilene is now the mother of the Boston Church.” “Upon what meat doth Caesar feed, that he should wax so fat?” Could the anti-Bible literature brethren accuse Hafley and his bunch for all the liberalism that is found in the Sunday school literature today? If we were to use Hafley’s measuring rod on him, we could say that he, along with the rest of his group, opened the door for liberalism when they defended the right to use such literature. If not, why not? However, it is a maxim which cannot be successfully denied that extremes beget extremes. Ketcherside, Garrett and Charles Holt are prime examples. Why would it not be just as reasonable to assume that this anti-ism that swept the church in the late forties and early fifties, led some brethren to back, and back, and back until they landed in the camp of liberalism? That is just as plausible to believe as Hafley’s charge.

The preaching and defending of a principle of truth does not mean one is responsible for the abuses and fallacious inferences pertaining to that truth. For an example, the brethren who oppose the sponsoring church arrangement believe that the only way to support the foreign evangelist is through direct support from the churches. Yet, in my files, I have a case of a brother who was evidently taking advantage of that method by receiving more from the churches than he was acknowledging. This is a brother among their ranks! Does that mean it is wrong to support a preacher directly? No. (But it may not be the best way to support the preacher.) Would we not be unjust to accuse all brethren and churches who approve of this method of being guilty of the same or encouraging the same? We would indeed. Thus, Hafley is not fair in accusing faithful brethren of the past or present of being responsible for liberalism in the church today.

We deplore both liberalism and anti-ism and plead for all to return to the old paths.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 21, pp. 656-657
November 7, 1991

By Tom M. Roberts

Should a Christian smoke? Should a Christian dance? Should a Christian drink alcoholic beverages? Should a Christian gamble? Should a Christian. . . . (insert your own particular question here)? These, and many more questions, are met by anyone trying to teach or preach as he confronts questionable practices among members of the church. On many occasions, these practices have become a battle ground between those who advocate their innocence and those who warn against their evil influence. Not only young people, but disciples who have been members of the church for years often wrestle with such areas of daily practice. When preachers oppose participation in these and similar actions, they are often accused of binding where God has not bound, of substituting their own opinion for God’s, or of being stricter than the Bible.

Since some of these issues are not addressed directly in the Bible (there is no “thou shalt not” regarding smoking, gambling, dancing, etc.), are we to understand that the word of God doesn’t speak to some areas of temptation? Is a practice to be considered sinful only if specific condemn nation is found, or can a thing be adjudged to be wrong based on biblical principles? Surely we must understand the Bible to speak concerning general statements of truth that have an application beyond the immediate subject. Consider that whereas the Bible states clearly that it is a sin to commit fornication (Gal. 5:19ff), it also warns against “lusting in the heart” (Matt. 5:27,28), a statement that would cover many situations in principle that are not stated directly. Is this generic statement in Matthew 5:28 not as much a statement of truth as that in Galatians 5:19? Is it not possible to lose one’s soul over “lusting in the heart” as surely as actual fornication?

With this in mind, we must realize that the Bible addressed temptations of life in methods beyond specific condemnation. The Christian who forms a walk of life based solely on avoiding specifically condemned sins may well be lost eternally because of involvement in practices that are condemned in principle. We need to be sure that our decisions and practices are such that we would never violate the will of Christ, however it may be expressed, in principle or precept.

Please notice that this paragraph heading puts an emphasis by italics on the word “Christian,” rather than on the quesiton of “should?” Many times, we seem to get bogged down in “should I” or “shouldn’t I” without really understanding another, and more important, emphasis: “I am a Christian.”

According to Thayer’s Lexicon, a Christian is “a follower of Christ” (Acts 11:26; 1 Pet. 4:16). Perhaps this noun and its definition offers a principle that may answer a lot of our queries about proper conduct concerning debatable practices.

If I am to be a follower of Christ, it seems reasonable to understand that I would be comfortable doing only what Christ would do in similar circumstances. I would also be uncomfortable doing what Christ would not do in similar circumstances. Realizing that Jesus lived a perfect life and that he has become our example to follow should make a powerful imprint in our daily life.” For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps” (1 Pet. 2:21). A Christian follows in the steps of Jesus.

Would Jesus have smoked, knowing that it is addictive, harmful to one’s health, harmful to others’ health, is wasteful, and is a bad influence? Can you picture Jesus with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth? Would Christ have smoked? Now, answer the question, “Should a Christian (a follower of Christ) smoke?”

Would Jesus have danced? Knowing that dancing invites lust in the heart, leads to adultery, leads your partner to lust, and provides a bad influence, would he dance? Can you really imagine Jesus on a dance floor, making indecent bodily gestures, or gyrating to the beat of sensuous music? Would Christ have danced? Now answer the question, “Should a Christian dance?”

Would Jesus gamble? Knowing that gambling violates the principle of honest work (Eph. 4:28), covetousness (Col. 3:5), is addictive, supports an evil industry, and is wasteful of one’s stewardship (Lk. 12:42; Matt. 25:14-30), would Jesus have gone to Las Vegas and played the slots, gambled on sports and led others to do the same? Would Christ have gambled? “Should a Christian gamble?”

Can we not also apply this to modesty, types of companions we keep, places we frequent, or, in fact, any area of doubt? Why not try to see if the life of Christ would support, in principle, his participation in the doubtful practice and then make your decision based on what the Lord would have done in similar circumstances. I don’t think we would be far off the mark at any time if we would conscientiously and faithfully mold our lives into the form of the perfect life of Christ. Perhaps we will find that the real reason why we are having such difficulty in making the right choice in these areas is that we have not really put Christ into our hearts (Phil. 2:5). Our moral life cannot be measured in feet or inches (the length of a skirt, one’s hair, etc.) but in likeness to that of the Lord. Our daily practice must not be to see how much we can get away with without crossing a specific command, but how closely can I follow the path of the Savior.

When Jesus becomes our pattern, our mold, our example, we will be able to find the answer to our question of “Should a Christian. . . ?” on every occasion. And unless he is our pattern, mold and example, we will continue to struggle with rules and regulations (however clear they may be), always looking for loopholes, exceptions, and inconsistencies in other people that would seek to justify our self-indulgence. We need, like Paul, to have “the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 22, pp. 674, 695
November 21, 1991

By Jady W. Copeland

As far back as I can remember I have heard of “hard” and soft” preachers. Most (if not all) of us would not like to be classified as either, perhaps, but rather think we preach a “well-balanced diet.” Of course there is a “negative” side of the gospel as well as the “positive” aspect. I remember that during the 1950s some were critical of the Gospel Guardian for being too “negative.” Brother Yater Tant reminded us that Paul said, “. . . reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and teaching” (2 Tim. 4:2), and then said this is two-thirds negative and one-third positive. I doubt that we can reduce it to some mathematical formula, and I doubt that brother Tant meant it that literally but it does say there are both negative and positive things to be spoken.

There are some preachers who have, at least in the eyes of most, become “specialists” on some issue. Of course they will probably deny such but we all realize that sometimes special attention must be given to various subjects due to their dangerous and troublesome nature. False doctrine must be met when it comes along (1 Tim. 1:3; Tit. 2:1; 1 Tim. 1:10, etc.). When such false teachings arise, good men must oppose them. In doing this, they must devote more time to such than they would otherwise, and I have no problem with this. When the societies and instrumental music were advocated over a hundred years ago, faithful men opposed it, and it became a very live issue for years. In the 1940s premillennialism was advocated by brethren, and good men met the issue. In the 1950s institutionalism and the social gospel again raised its head and brethren spent much time opposing this error. But even in such instances, we must be very careful not to neglect other important matters among God’s people. If elders are to feed the flock, and preachers are to preach the word, a “well-balanced diet” must be maintained. Some today see the great need to meet error relative to divorce and re-marriage and other subjects, and I appreciate the work done by some in these fields. And maybe they are classified as too “one-sided” but let us be very careful of our own motives before we criticize. And these “specialists” must be very careful they do not go to extremes.

But there is another thought worth considering. There are some brethren who seldom, if ever, preach the basics and oppose religious error. Their thrust in their preaching is love, meekness, joy, personal work, brotherly kindness, spiritual growth, etc. What’s wrong with this? Absolutely nothing: as long as we don’t neglect the fundamentals of the cross – the death and resurrection of Christ, baptism, the one body, scriptural worship and the like. Also, as noted above, religious error must be met head on. But again I must be very careful that I am not too critical of these brethren. Everyone has his own style of preaching, and as long as we preach the “whole counsel of God” we are to be commended. But these above-named brethren must be careful not to criticize too strongly those who preach the basics as well. After all, it was the preaching of these basics that caused the Lord’s church to grow in the early part of this century. Preachers who were often farmers during the week preached on Sundays and in meetings in the summer and established churches all over this nation. They met denominational error. They preached the basics. Only the Lord can judge whether or not they neglected other important subjects.

Since “doctrine” means “teaching” we must teach all of the word. Isn’t that what we have told the denominational world? A part of this teaching is attitude. Much division has been caused by improper attitudes toward one another and the improper respect and love one for another. This is as much a part of the sound teaching as the other. Wouldn’t it be sad if we get to judgment and the Lord told us, “You were right about the one body, baptism, instrumental music, the deity of Christ, premillennialism, institutionalism and the like, but you had the wrong attitude toward your brethren “?

Please remember what I wrote above. False doctrine must be met. Error must be answered. False teachers and false brethren must be identified (1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Jn. 9-10). But isn’t there too much evidence today, brethren, of a poor spirit toward one another? Are we really exercising love, forbearance, meekness, gentleness, kindness and the like one toward another? In many cases do we not see that brethren (when they differ) become defensive, react emotionally to the issues, question and impugn motives and inject personal and caustic remarks toward others with whom we disagree. if we demand a thus saith the Lord, where is the thus saith the Lord for such an attitude? Will we ever learn to sit down in a friendly, brotherly way to discuss our differences without hatred, distrust and suspicion? Pardon the personal reference, but my brother in the flesh disagrees with me on the institutional issues. We have discussed it at length. But we are still friends. Why? “Because you are brothers.” Right. And why should not spiritual brothers have a closer relationship than fleshly brothers?

“Soundness” must not be applied only to “the issues.” Is a person “sound” who has the wrong attitude toward a brother in Christ? It is distressing to hear folks talk about our papers written by brethren. “I don’t take ‘X’ paper because they are always fighting.” But another comes in with “I can’t take ‘XX’ paper because they are too “soft.” Do not different papers have different thrusts? At least that’s my understanding, and most of them state it in their first issue. The question is, “Do the writers of this paper, along with the editor, speak the truth in love?” (Eph. 4:15) Now if they do not, they need criticism. Remember, brethren, these papers are not like the Bible. They do not pretend to be infallible, and do not pretend to have all the truth as God has revealed it. Foy E. Wallace, Jr. stated in the first issue of the old Gospel Guardian, “The name of the magazine suggests its mission and policy. It is controversial – doctrinal to the core” (Gospel Guardian, V. 1, No. 1, p. 2). In the last paragraph of his editorial he states, “My magazine has a field of its own.” So certain papers have different purposes and of course it is left to each individual if he wishes to subscribe. But must we have ugly attitudes toward one another?

By now some of you are putting me in the “soft” classification. But what I am saying is that unscriptural attitudes toward brethren is as condemning as unscriptural “doctrinal” practices. Brother E. Glen Barnhart has an excellent workbook on Attitudes and Reactions to Congregational Problems. He does not know I am writing this, and if I have ever met brother Barnhart I do not recall it. But every church needs to teach this book. It is the best approach to the problems I have raised that I have seen. He outlines Bible principles in a logical and fine way getting to the very root of most local church problems. The thrust of the book is unity and shows how application of these Bible attitudes will prevent division and problems among God’s saints.

Think on these things; the Bible is right.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 21, pp. 650-651
November 7, 1991

By Larry Ray Hafley

This is a reply to Ben F. Vick, Jr’s. article, “Answering Hafley’s ‘African Christian Hospital Foundation,”‘ which is printed in this issue of GOT. See the January 3, 1991, issue of GOT for my article, “African Christian Hospitals Foundation.”

Brother Vick’s title is a misnomer. He advertizes his article as an answer to mine, but he provided no answers to the questions posed in my initial article. For example, (1) assuming that a missionary society were to be arranged like the African Christian Hospital Foundation (ACHF), I asked, “If this were done, would it be scriptural for churches of Christ to fund and finance that organization? If not, why not? Will any of our institutional brethren say yea or nay?” Brother Vick’s article purports to be “Answering Hafley,” but he did not say yea or nay to that question. Inquiring minds wonder why.

(2) Assuming that a veterinary clinic is scriptural (It is not, but I “authorized” one from the Scriptures on the same basis that ACHF was “authorized”) and granting that it be organized as is ACHF, I asked, “What say ye brethren? Would such an organization be ‘Scripturally Sound’?” Brother Vick claims to be “Answering Hafley, ” but he did not give an answer to whether or not a veterinary clinic, organized like the hospital, would be scriptural. So, we still do not know what brother Vick’s answer is. Will inquiring minds ever know?

(3) Remember, brother Vick is supposed to be “Answering Hafley.” In my article, I constructed a “Christian Recreation Foundation” and arranged it exactly like the ACHE Then I asked if such a recreational foundation would be scriptural – “Will our institutional brethren . . . endorse or divorce such a proposal? On what grounds do they do so? Are the medical foundations (both human and animal, physical and veterinary) parallel to the social and recreational? If not, how do they differ? Can one accept one foundation and reject the others? If so, on what basis?” Brother Vick’s article has no answer to those questions. He totally ignored that which deals directly with the issues between us, yet he is supposed to be “Answering Hafley.”

(4) Next, as my January 3, 1991, article shows, I asked if “institutional orphan homes” were arranged and organized like the ACHF, could they … avoid being’ a missionary society if they insisted that each missionary was sent by a sponsoring church?” I added, “Perhaps Ben F. Vick Jr. . . . could tell us whether such an ‘organizational arrangement’ would be ‘Scripturally Sound.”‘ While allegedly “Answering Hafley,” brother Vick conveniently overlooked this question also.

(5) Finally, I proposed a “Christian College Foundation” which was to “be supported on the same basis as the ACHF.” I asked, “Could churches contribute to kindergartens and colleges and avoid being a missionary society in so doing?” Brother Vick’s article contains no answer to that question, either; yet, he would have us believe that he is “Answering Hafley.”

Inquiring minds may be wondering why brother Vick did not answer those questions. Oh, he can answer them, but if he does, he will be faced with certain difficulties. Brother Vick believes the local church, as the Lord ordered, ordained and organized it, is God’s missionary society (1 Tim. 3:15). He believes the church, not a human organization, is to preach the gospel. Brother Vick does not believe that churches of Christ may build and maintain missionary organizations to do the work God assigned to the church (Acts 11:22; 1 Thess. 1:8). He does not believe that churches should form human boards and societies and fund and finance those organizations to do that work. In this, brother Vick occupies scriptural ground. The church is sufficient to do the work God gave it to do (Eph. 4:8-16). There is no scriptural authority for churches of Christ to form or fund a human institution to do the work of gospel preaching.

However, brother Vick believes that a church may contribute to a benevolent society to relieve the needy. The church has a benevolent responsibility (Acts 6:1-6; 1 Tim. 5:16). Brother Vick believes that churches of Christ may fund benevolent societies which exist “to provide for the care of” the needy. In principle, what he disavows in evangelism, he allows in benevolence.

Thus, brother Vick has to tread lightly when he would criticize an organization separate and apart from the church which is designed to do the work God assigned to the church. This is part, but only a part, of the reason why he is hesitant and squeamish about answering questions regarding the scripturalness of such institutions.

Brother Vick is confronted with the same dilemma regarding church sponsored dining rooms, banquet facilities, cafeterias (a.k.a. “fellowship halls”). He contends for these things on a limited basis but opposes churches building Family Life Centers, gymnasiums, camp grounds, health spas and related items such as the Gospel Advocate and Furman Kearley advocate. However, that line of distinction between a “fellowship hall” and a gym is only one phase of his difficulties.

The most serious problem again involves the organization that provides such things. Without discussing the limit or extent of the church’s involvement in providing social and recreational activities, we grant, for sake of argument, that the church has such a duty. (It has to be granted, for it cannot be scripturally established in the New Testament.) Having granted that the church may provide social and recreational facilities, we ask: May the church contribute to a human organization which is set up to provide social, recreational and entertainment activities for churches of Christ?

If the church had a duty to provide such items, it could do so by using its own people, power and organization. That is what brother Vick and his brethren do. They select the men, mission, methods and minister the work. They do this without a human board, without creating a separate social society. Churches do not comnoute to a YMCA type organization and let it provide the social functions or “fellowship.” No, the churches do their own work. They promote and perform their own recreation and entertainment. If the work were scriptural, there would be no question about it.

But this question is raised: May churches of Christ build and maintain social and/or recreational organizations which provide the facilities (“fellowship halls,” kitchens, gyms, volleyball nets, basketballs, etc.)? May churches do this?

The parallel is uncomfortable for brother Vick and his brethren. In relieving the needy, they contend that a church may contribute to a benevolent society. This organization is separate and apart from the church. It does the work of relieving the needy which God assigned to the church (1 Tim. 5:16). So, may churches fund similar organizations in providing “fellowship halls” and gymnasiums? If the answer is “no,” then why is a benevolent society acceptable? The church is as able to provide social and recreational “fellowship” activities as it is to provide relief for the needy (Acts 6:1-6). If benevolence may be done by the church contributing to a human organization, why not “fellowship halls” and recreation? It is hard to answer and be consistent. Accept one, accept the other. Deny one, deny the other. Brother Vick accepts one (benevolent society), but denies the other (YMCA).

Guardian of Truth

Observe brother Vick’s attempt to parallel the “Guardian Of Truth Foundation.” First, GOT is not supported by churches, neither indeed can be. It is not the function of the church to print and publish materials for sale. Guardian of Truth, like the Firm Foundation or Gospel Advocate Co., is a private business enterprise. Churches may buy services from such organizations to do their work as they buy the services of electric power companies, but the church has no business funding such enterprises.

Vick quotes a description of services offered by the GOT and asks, “Now does that sound like the work of the church?” Suppose we describe the services offered by the Electric Power Company this way: “Provides lighting for worship assemblies and Bible study, makes possible the public proclamation of the truth (power for microphones, overhead projectors, tape recorders), aids in arrangements to carry the gospel into the homes of the lost (film strips, radio and TV programs, etc.).” Now, brother Vick, does that sound like the work of the church? The power company provides electricity which both churches and individuals can use to spread the gospel. But (1) there is no authority for the church to make financial donations to the power company, and (2) the power company does not conduct work or function in any sense as the church. The very same thing is true of GOT. Inquiring minds can understand this; unbalanced minds, trying to cloud an issue, pretend they cannot.

Second, “The Informer,” the bulletin published by the Shelbyville Road church of Christ where brother Vick preaches, is a means that church uses to preach the gospel. We all agree that it is scriptural. It is a way, a “how,” a means or method of that church’s fulfilling its responsibility to sound out the word of the Lord (1 Thess. 1:8).

However, should the Shelbyville Rd. church decide to turn its preaching work over to a Church Bulletin Foundation and let that organization do the work (writing, editing, arranging material), we (and brother Vick, too, I suspect) would object. The Shelbyville Rd. church is not a printing company, but it may acquire the equipment, purchase the paper, hire the workers and publish its paper, “The Informer. ” It may not set up an organization with a board of directors and send its fifth Sunday contribution to that organization and let it do the work of publishing their bulletin.

Finally, brother Vick wonders if the “anti-Bible literature brethren” might “accuse Hafley and his bunch” of being responsible for liberalism in literature. Well, brother Vick, if they do, they surely will not put their charges in print! Regarding the abuse of the N.T. pattern of church support of evangelism (2 Cor. 11:8, 9; Phil. 4:15-17; Acts 11:22; 15:3), brother Vick cites an abuse. Could not the same thing be done to sponsoring churches? Could one milk and bilk a plurality of sponsoring churches just as well as he could take advantage of scripturally functioning churches?

Please note that regarding the scriptural practice of direct support of preachers by the churches, brother Vick says, “But it may not be the best way to support the preacher.” Let that sink in. 2 Corinthians 11:8,9, and Philippians 4:15-17 “may not be the best way” to support a preacher, but it has the decided advantage of being the scriptural way!

One wonders if a benevolent society might not also take in more money than it actually needs. Have the institutional orphan homes ever begged for money and made their situation sound desperate when in reality they were financially sound?

Contending for the New Testament pattern of work and worship does not beget extremes. However, a little liberalism leavens and liberalizes a large lump. The apostasies of the 19th and 20th centuries among churches of Christ are prime examples. The Missionary Society was the worm from the germ of institutional “churchhood” concepts that led to the development of the Disciples of Christ denomination. Church support of colleges, benevolent societies, “fellowship halls,” and the “Herald Of Truth” sponsoring church arrangement of the 1940s and 1950s have spawned the riptide of liberal digression that threatens to engulf and envelope men like brother Vick, Roy Deaver, Tom Warren, Dub McClish, Johnny Ramsey and such like. They may not see it or admitted it, but it is the truth. They are isolated from Abilene to Pepperdine. They are too conservative, too much like those hated and berated “antis” to be comfortably accepted on the pages of the Gospel Advocate or on the platform of a Harding lecture program. The principles of Abilene begat Crossroads and Boston. The principles underlying the defense of “fellowship halls” and the snide jokes about worried “Wee Willie the Water Cooler” begat Family Life Centers, camp grounds and health spas owned by the churches. The “poor, starving orphan” argument that sought contributions to benevolent societies is now used to beg money for “Medical Missions” and “Christian Hospitals.”

Will brother Vick affirm that “churches of Christ may contribute to the African Christian Hospitals Foundation, that ‘avoids being a missionary society by insisting that all missionaries be sent by a sponsoring church'”? If he will affirm it, I will deny it. I propose two such debates. One will be held in Indianapolis and one in Memphis. Perhaps then we could hear brother Vick’s answers to inquiring minds.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 21, pp. 657-660
November 7, 1991