Truth Magazine

By C.G. “Colly” Caldwell

Charles Holt’s editorial in the May 1988 issue of The Examiner was entitled “What Do We Do If There Is No Local Church Institution?” The opening sentence says, “Over and over in this paper I have pointed out that there is actually no ‘church’ (of any kind) in God’s word.” Brother Holt goes on to say, that it is assumption to affirm that “the Lord has provided a ‘pattern’ and the church institution – ‘the local church’ – is to be built according to this pattern. ” He holds that the “Lord did not prescribe any organizational entity or structure, no institution, which his disciples must ‘join’ or in which they must ‘place membership.”‘ He further teaches that, “There is nothing the Lord wants us to do that is not done by us as individuals. There is no corporate or institution responsibility. The Lord has never assigned any work to a Church organization. There is no such thing as ‘collective responsibilities.”‘ In summary, he says, “There is no ‘local church’ institution, such as we have today . . . set forth in God’s word.”

That editorial is typical. In it, as in his other writings (before and since), brother Holt expresses concern about the word “church” and its implications. Words must be scripturally defined. “Baptism,” for example, must be defined but brother Holt does not refuse to use the term. Nonetheless, ekklesia is used over one hundred times in the New Testament and it must mean something!

I am certain that most of us who are dedicated to the will of Christ as taught in the New Testament are as concerned as brother Holt about preserving undenominational Christianity and avoiding institutionary development within the church of Christ. We do not desire to make an “institution” (in any unscriptural sense) of the local church. Likewise, while wo do not share some of brother Holt’s views concerning elders, we agree that if elders see their function as institutional executives or “business managers” they have missed the point of their service in the Lord’s body. I do not believe, as brother Holt seems to do, that brethren almost universally abuse God’s will regarding the assembling of saints by allowing the local church to control and order their lives; but if they do, such does not argue that we are never taught in Scripture to act collectively. We need to cut through brother Holt’s rhetoric and indentification of abuses (which we oppose as much as he) and ask some simple questions.

1. Did God conceive of his people together in Christ and recognize them in any collective sense? The answer is “Yes.” God used the collective term ekklesia (“assembly” if “church” is objectionable) to describe all his people in the Gospel age who are collected in spiritual relationship. We all “think people” when we think of the church because it is composed of Christians, but one person (Christian) is not the ekklesia or assembly in any sense (universal or local).

The Lord also used the term “body” and said that “the body is not one member, but many” (1 Cor. 12:14). “All the members do not have the same function” but we are “members of one another” (Rom. 12:4-5). Christ is the Head of this body (Eph. 1:22-23) and, incidentally, the body (soma) is the church (ekklesia).

2. Did God provide for any actual local collective arrangement and identification of his people? Again, the answer is “Yes.” In the very beginning years, brethren were locally identifiable in both Jerusalem and Antioch (Acts 11:22,26). The disciples “came together” locally for specific purposes (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2). Paul spoke of the need for brethren to understand their responsibilities to one another in the local group of Christians associated together. He said, “And we urge you, brethren, to recognize those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord and admonish you,” etc. (1 Thess. 5:12-15). Peter spoke of the “flock of God which is among you” and of all being “submissive to one another” (1 Pet. 5:1-5). The writer of Hebrews called for brethren to “consider one another in order to stir up to love and good works” and admonish them not to forsake the “assembling” of brethren together (Heb. 10:24-25).

3. Is the term ekklesia used in the New Testament to describe the actual local collective? “Yes” is the answer. Paul addressed the ekklesia at Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1), the ekkiesia at Thessalonica (1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1), and the ekklesiais (plural) of Galatia (Gal. 1:2). He spoke of the ekklesia in the house of Priscilla and Acquilla (Rom. 16:5). That these were individually identifiable is indisputable in the fact that the term ekklesia is used in the plural: “the churches of Christ” (Rom. 16:16); “the churches of Galatia” (Gal. 1:2); “the churches of Judea” (Gal. 1:22); etc. John said that he was instructed to write to the seven ekklesiais (plural) in seven specific locations in Asia (Rev. 1:11). In chapters two and three the term ekklesia is used to refer to a collectivity of brethren in each location.

4. Is the local ekklesia an independent functional entity or is it a spontaneous, occasional, amorphous gathering of saints? An “entity” is a single person or thing, or a collected group of persons or things, considered as having distinctness in itself. “Functional” suggests the capability of action, operation, or work. The ekklesia of Christ when viewed in the New Testament as comprising all saved persons is an “entity.” It is not, however, a functional entity because the people are not commissioned to come together to act or work collectively. They, therefore, have no capacity for collective action. The ekklesia in a particular locality is seen in the New Testament as both an entity and functional. Each local church has both the commission and capacity to function collectively. Each local church is independent of the others; hence it is not dependent on any other for the authorization, support, oversight, or performance of its function(s). Paul and Barnabas assembled with the ekklesia at Antioch for “a whole year” (Acts 11:26). Paul and Barnabas “gathered the church (ekklesia) together” and “reported” to it what God had done with them (Acts 14:27). The ekklesia sent Paul and Barnabas on their way to Jerusalem; and when they arrived, they were received by the ekklesia at Jerusalem (Acts 15:3-4). The church at Antioch was known by Paul. He came to and went from the regular, on-going assembling and functioning of those brethren.

5. Did God plan any actual collective activity for his people and does Christ direct God’s people in any collective activity? “Yes,” the Lord provided the arrangement for accomplishing collective activity for worship, teaching, edifying, and caring for one another through the local church? The ekklesia at Corinth gathered together and in that assembled body was, among other activities, to exercise discipline (1 Cor. 5:4-5), take the Lord’s supper (1 Cor. 11:17-23), and edify one another in worship (1 Cor. 14:23-40). The ekklesia at Philippi “had fellowship” with Paul and “sent once and again to my need,” he said (Phil. 4:15-16). Other ekklesiais (plural) sent wages to Paul (2 Cor. 11:8).

It is inconceivable in light of the many passages which call for brethren to love one another and to do spiritual things together that some deny that God planned any identification of those persons locally for the purpose of collective function. Again, such is not to claim for that body of saints working together the kind of institutionalized, ecclesiastical or denominational framework apparent among those who go outside the New Testament for their concepts and ideas. Neither does it suggest that we are prepared to band congregations into a larger functional unit. The truth is that the Lord has provided the ekklesia for the very purpose of bringing Christians together to be edified so that they can accomplish God’s work (Eph. 4:12).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 19, pp. 579-580
October 4, 1990

By Larry Ray Hafley

The corporation of our title is a siren through which Charles Holt wails and whines. As will be documented in this special series, brother Holt attacks the fact, foundation and function of the church you can read about in your New Testament. Before you become a megaphone or microphone to echo his economy or fund his corporation, you need to remember against whom you are fighting. To persecute the church is to persecute Christ (Acts 8:3; 9:1,4,5). To “withstand the kingdom of the Lord” is to “fight . . . against the Lord God” (2 Chron. 13:8,12), and those who do so “shall not prosper.”

Brother Holt’s organization may prosper; his organizational coffers may “increase and abound yet more and more,” but he shall not prosper. Neither will you if you join his corporation and support its confrontation against the firm foundation of God Almighty. I would as soon stand in the Judgment as the one who pierced the physical side of the Son of God with a spear as to stand there as one who prated against his spiritual body with malicious words.

There may be grievous abuses of truth (2 Tim. 2:16-18); there may be gross violations of Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16); there may be corrupt churches and mercenary ministers (Rev. 2:18-3:5; 2 Pet. 2:1-3). Grant that it is true. Still, it does not warrant us to war against the King and kingdom of God. Paul was “shamefully entreated, as ye know, at Philippi,” but he did not prate against preachers, chide the churches or evict by edict the elders of the churches. Brethren, before you are taken in by the Truth & Freedom Ministry, Inc. in general and by Charles Holt in particular, beware of what and whom you are opposing (cf. Mat. 25:40,45).

We hear the blasting pestilence of brother Holt’s organization against the alleged abuses of the church of God. We read his accusations and insinuations, his slurs and slanders, against the church of the firstborn ones. If it were all true, it would not justify his cause or course. We read of Peter’s declarations and protestations of firm, fearless faith (Matt. 26:33; Mk. 14:29; Lk. 22:33; Jn. 13:37). We hear his base denial – “I know not the man.” We hear him defend his acceptance of Gentiles (Acts 11). We see his hypocrisy and subsequent condemnation because he feared the Jews (Gal. 2:11-14).

What shall we say to this? Do we start a foundation in apposition to the apostles? The hushed howls of Paul’s enemies whispered that he was preaching for ulterior motives begotten of an inferior apostleship. Do we campaign, then, against the apostolic office, work or function? Do we deny and decry all apostles of the Lamb? Do we take the word, “apostle,” and show that it is used in very broad and general ways in the New Testament (cf. Phil. 2:25), and thus negate the special role of the “holy apostles” (Eph. 3:5; 1 Pet. 1:12)? God forbid!

The Truth & Freedom Ministry, Inc. often uses scriptural concepts to taunt true truth and freedom. Its writers speak of “the traditions of the church”; they speak of the “‘powers that be,’ the authoritarian preachers and elders of ‘the Church.”‘ They rant and rail against “mercenary,” “hireling,” “professional preacher” of the “corporate Church of Christ” and insist that they are “free thinkers” who have rebelled against the “party-line” while the rest of us are left to “line-up,” or “goose-step” to the tune of Pied Piper preachers and elders who demand unquestioning obedience to the “status-quo.” Christians in a local congregation, under the oversight of elders (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2-4; Phil. 1:1), are seen as objects of pity, scorn and ridicule. They are pictured and portrayed as blind followers of the blind, as “lowly, voiceless members who must pay their dues to the organization,” and as those who are consigned and resigned forever to “obey and pay.”

Warning From an Elder

Before you parrot the party-line of the Truth & Freedom Ministry, Inc., remember these words from an elder in the church:

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: . . . them that walk after the flesh . . and despise government. Presumptuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities . . . . But these . . . speak evil of the things they understand not . . . . These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure . . . those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is lie brought in bondage (2 Pet. 2:1-19).

Brethren, they promise you liberty, but it is the “liberty” of a master’s rope, not of the Master’s hope.

Church and His Corporation Equivalent?

Brother Holt believes his Truth and Freedom Ministry, Inc. and the Lord’s church are “equivalent human structurcs or organizations.” Note the quote below.

The church/building and the local church/institution are both from the wisdom and will of men. This fact in itself does not mean that they are necessarily wrong or sinful. As an example, Truth and Freedom Ministry, Inc. is a religious corporation, a legal entity under law, that originated in the will and wisdom of men. I believe it is an expedient method for disciples to combine individual efforts to teach and preach the word of God, as well as do other related “religious” activities. But – and get this fact, please! we do not in anyway whatever think that this human corporation is from God or that the Lord built it or even gave a “pattern” for such.

The facts are, biblically and according to civil law, that Truth and Freedom Ministry, Inc. and the local C of CC (church of Christ Church – LRH) are equivalent human structures or organizations. The difference is that we know this truth and admit it; but your clergy are “selling” you a human organization as a divine institution, just exactly as the Roman Catholic Church claims for itself (Charles Holt, The Examiner, May 1988, pp. 2,3).

Please read the citation above very carefully. Observe that the local church, as per 1 Corinthians 1:2 and Galatians 1:2, is a “human organization. ” As such, it is “equivalent” to brother Holt’s corporation. If Christians began to preach that the church is not a divine organization and that is does not have a divine “pattern” of operation, one wonders if that would make it acceptable unto God? Brother Holt’s “Ministry” has all the rights and privileges that are appointed to the church in the New Testament. The quotations above and their “Forums” exemplify that fact.

Brother Holt is correct – his “Ministry” is a “human organization.” “Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it” (Psa. 127:1). “Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up” (Matt. 15:13), and brother Holt assures us that the Lord did not plant his.

Appeals for Money

The Truth and Freedom Ministry, Inc. chastens Christians who “lay by in store” as the Bible teaches (1 Cor. 16:2) , as “The lowly, voiceless members (who) must pay their dues to the organization. Obey and pay, that’s the whole duty of the faithful church member” (The Examiner, January 1990, p. 32)! “C of C church members have been brainwashed into believing that giving into the church treasury is their duty, as one of the imagined Yive acts of worship,’ and must be done every Sunday. This is set forth as a ‘sacred duty’ and failure to do so means condemnation by God. Therefore, they ‘fear’ the threats of men and dutifully obey men rather than God. You do not owe the C of C church anything” (Charles Holt, The Examiner, March, 1989, p. 29).

Now, the hook is set. Once you are convinced to cease doing what the New Testament teaches you to do, what should you do with your money? Well, here is brother Holt’s advice on the same page of the last quote above.

Has this paper helped you toward a better understanding of God’s word? Has it made you more aware of the departure from the simple way of the Lord? . . . Have you come to recognize that the C of C churches have become a fullfledged denomination the same as others? . . . Has it helped you to accept the truth that there is no “Lord’s treasury” or divinely authorized “church treasury” into which you are required to pay? . .

If these probing questions can be answered in the affirmative, . . . then YOU have been helped by this paper. . . . Surely YOU do understand this: Freely YOU have received, freely give. Are YOU willing to do this, even as others have done for you?

HELP US FINANCIALLY WITH THIS PAPER! This is very important . . . . YOUR FINANCIAL HELP is NEEDED . . . . It is needed NOW. It is needed on a regular basis.

Note this appeal from brother Holt, “Be a part of this effort, after the manner of the early disciples: ‘. . . and in proportion that any disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the . . .’ publication of THE EXAMINER (cf. Acts 11:29) . . . . We need your financial help” (The Examiner, January, 1990, p. 17). An elder of the church once said, “And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you” (2 Pet. 2:3). Once you are talked out of laying by in store on the first day of the week, once you become convinced that is a mere human contrivance of “the clergy” in the “church of Christ church denomination,” what should you do with your money? Why, do like they did in Acts I I send it to brother Holt and The Examiner. He that hath an ear, let him hear.

Conclusion

Brother Holt is obviously a brilliant and talented man. I assume that his motives, so far as they are known to him, are pure. Both this article and special issue are distasteful to me. They give me no pleasure. However, as long as one believes that brother Holt and his organization are teaching error, he must oppose his views. To all who have known and loved him over the years, I urge you to pray for him and to use whatever friendship you have had with him in t e past to encourage him to repent and to preach again the truth and freedom for which he once so boldly contended.

There are those who say that they disagree with brother Holt’s doctrines. They say they agree that his ideas are foreign to the Bible. Yet, they sympathize with him and criticize those who oppose his teachings. Is that scriptural love (Gal. 4:16; Jn. 8:40)? I think not. If we did not love brother Holt and his soul, these pointed efforts would never have been made.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 19, pp. 589-590
October 4, 1990

By Ron Halbrook

We are to teach and admonish one another, but each one of us must constantly examine and re-examine himself to be sure that he is abiding in the gospel of Christ. Some brethren at Corinth who were under the influence of false teaching set themselves up to challenge the apostle Paul and to test him by the standard of a carnal mind. The false teachers judged Paul harshly for such things as changing his travel plans, not accepting financial support from Corinth while preaching there, and an apparent lack of polish in his personal appearance or presentation as a speaker.

Those who tested Paul by means of such tangents and side issues conveniently overlooked the decisive facts which proved Paul was a genuine apostle of Christ. It was Paul who had revealed the gospel to the Corinthians and taught them from the beginning (1 Cor. 4:15). He proved the message was not his own but was sent from God by producing signs, wonders, and miracles (2 Cor. 12:12). In contrast to the sleight-of-hand methods, dishonest maneuvers, and carnal manipulations practiced by the false teachers, Paul had been scrupulously honest and sincere, open and above aboard, both in his method of teaching and manner of life (2 Cor. 2:17; 4:2; 8:21). The false teachers were great braggarts and trusted in their own shrewdness, whereas Paul openly acknowledged his weakness in the flesh and his utter dependence on the strength of the Lord (2 Cor. 10:12; 12:7-10).

Paul turned the tables on those who so meticulously questioned and tested him when he suggested that it was high time they tested themselves. No matter how awkward and unsophisticated they might think Paul to be, they had best be sure they could pass the test of truth in the sight of the Lord.

Ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me.

Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

Now I pray to God that ye do no evil; not that we should appear approved, but that ye should do that which is honest, though we be as reprobates. For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth (2 Cor. 13:3,5,7-8).

If we fail the test of truth, we destroy ourselves rather than the truth, and Christ is not in us. To demand of other a thorough investigation when we ourselves are failing the test of truth and right is to be counterfeit or reprobate in the faith.

Testing the Tester, Examining the Examiner

The Examiner edited by Charles Holt has been long and loud in challenging and testing brethren on a wide range of issues. While we are willing to be tested concerning anything we preach and practice, it is high time the peculiar views advocated by The Examiner be tested. This special issue of the Guardian of Truth is devoted to the theme “Examining the Examiner.”

We have repeatedly received requests that we make some material available analyzing the doctrines of Charles Holt and The Examiner. A brother in Missouri called to say this error was causing serious trouble in his area. A young preacher in Florida asked for some material because members of the church there are being infected with these errors. Recently a church in Texas was suddenly flooded with copies of The Examiner. Those who are pushing and pressing the peculiar positions of The Examiner are creating doubt and confusion rather than strength and stability.

The first issue of The Examiner said, “The Examiner is scheduled for a five-year life-span. . . . If it should last that long, it will then cease” (Jan. 1986, p. 2). As the paper nears the end of its fifth year, Charles Holt pleads with “the readers to provide the finances necessary to keep it going and growing in circulation. . . . We ask and we hope to receive adequate funds to continue and enlarge this valuable work” (July 1990, p. 28). While we do not want to overreact to this menace, neither do we believe that dangerous error will just go away if we ignore it. Our aim is to examine The Examiner in the light of Scripture. We want to be fair and objective, to speak the truth in love, and to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3).

We have every confidence that the power of truth will overcome the doubt and confusion generated by The Examiner. Competent preachers have been chosen to outline key truths taught in God’s Word in contrast to key errors propagated by The Examiner. We shall emphasize the importance of speaking the truth in love and the imperative of Bible teaching on the local church, including the eldership, the assembly, and the treasury. The Truth and Freedom Ministry, Inc. will be examined, along with the false concept of unity-in-diversity advocated in The Examiner. The claim of non-sectarian faith and the charge of institutional religion will be considered. The pernicious effects of The Examiner will be discussed, including worldliness, ship-wrecks of the faith, misguided writers, and the fruits of unsound teaching.

Truth In Love, Not Traditionalism

Satan tries to intimidate and silence those who fight error with such charges as “nothing but a preacher’s fight,” “traditionalism,” “a political machine,” and “trying to run the brotherhood.” Error flatters itself with the false claim of “independent thought,” implying that faithful men are blind tradition-mongers. Each writer who has participated in this issue of the Guardian of Truth is an independent student of God’s Word and makes his appeal to that Word rather than to human traditions. There has been no effort on the part of any of these men to create or exercise a brotherhoodwide power, mechanism, or machine of any kind.

Brother James W. Adams closes his keynote article on “Speaking the Truth in Love” with these worcis, ‘What I have written are solely my sentiments . . . . I wisit to be held accountable for only that which I personally say.” Every faithful teacher, every contributor to this series shares that ground. Each writer stands before God alone with an open Bible in an effort to learn and to teach accurately what the Bible says. Wherein they stand united, it is not because of human collaboration or traditionalism but because we can and must understand the Bible alike. As our readers study this material, let them in like manner present themselves before God with wa open Bible in a sincere desire to learn the truth without allegiance to any man, paper, or human brotherhood.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 19, pp. 577, 607
October 4, 1990

By James W. Adams

“Speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ” (Eph. 4:15).

It is evident, even to a casual reader of our text, that the increase of the body of Christ numerically by persons being saved and added to it by the Lord, as well as the spiritual perfection of those thus saved and added, are to be accomplished instrumentally through “speaking the truth in love.” It is quite as evident that the “truth” thus referred to is “the gospel” (Eph. 1:13). It is also clear that this “truth” or “gospel” included the ethical behavior of Christians as well as a revelation of the acts of God in redemption, hence is to be equated with the “doctrine of Christ” (Tit. 2:10). Therefore, all efforts to make arbitrary distinctions between gospel and doctrine are purely gratuitous and have no foundation in the Scriptures. This is manifest from the amount of ethical instruction contained in the letter to the Ephesians (chapters 4,5,6).

The text also reveals that it is not enough to “speak the truth,” as important as that is, but that it must be spoken “in love.” We dare not disregard either aspect of this inspired edict. The expression “the truth” has to do with the content of our teaching. The expression “in love” has to do with motive and manner.

I have been asked to write on this topic in an issue of the Guardian of Truth dedicated to an examination of the teaching and practice of my long-time friend, co-worker in days gone by, and brother in the Lord, Charles A. Holt. I do so reluctantly, for I have long ago given up any hope of effecting a change in our brother’s teaching and practice. I have for almost twenty-five years deplored, dealt with (in the “pulpit” and the “press” and face to face conversations) brother Holt’s vagaries along with those of others who have been aligned with him, but to no avail. I have for a long time now only dealt with the views and practices of these brethren where their influence seems to be creating, or has the possibility of creating, strife and division among brethren and churches. In my judgment, they are more of a sometimes troublesome nuisance rather than a real threat to the churches and the truth.

I am convinced that their views relative to the Lord’s ekk1esia (“church”) contain within their bosom the germ of their own demise. Someone has correctly (when properly defined) noted: “No movement in history has ever succeeded until it has become institutionalized.” This is but to say that no movement which does not result in an organic manifestation of some sort is ephemeral. It is nebulous. It clouds the atmosphere for a moment and disappears as suddenly as and as certainly as it appears. Holt’s errors are not new, as is the case with most false doctrine. Others have held similar views in days past. They were tested and discarded because they are neither rational nor scriptural. Holt’s, Jennings’, and the views of others of like nature will suffer the same fate.

“Speaking In Love”

“Love” in this text is from the Greek agape. To practice this grace, one must always seek the highest good of its object. What is the object in our text, It is the truth? If so, we should speak the truth so as to promote its highest interests. Is it Christ? If so, we must speak the truth always in a manner that pleases him and best promotes his purposes. Is it the person being taught? If so, we must teach the truth so as to promote his highest good. I am persuaded that we must do all three. We must speak the truth in love of Christ, the truth, and the persons whom we address, and we must speak the truth in a manner calculated to promote the highest interests of all three.

One of the chief complaints of brother Holt and his colleagues is that they are never understood and always misrepresented. This charge challenges the intelligence and sincerity of all those who disagree with the published concepts of these brethren and dare to publish their protestations. It is a charge that is arrogant, sinfully judgmental, and palpably false. If one desires for others to speak in love concerning him and his views, he is obligated thus to speak himself. It is a fact easily documented that brother Holt presents his views invariably with scathing denunciations of churches, his brethren generally, and particularly, elders and other preachers. He deliberately magnifies abuses, espouses moot and questionable exegeses of Scripture, scornfully denounces what he calls “traditional Church of Christ positions,” attributes base monetary motivation to preachers who are fully supported by the churches in their work, and scornfully ridicules the professed undenominational status of “churches of Christ.” My files abound with documentation of such. It would take a master magician to equate his approach to these matters with “speaking the truth in love.”

I have no difficulty with brother Holt and those who travel his road doctrinally, so long as they hold their views as personal convictions and do not press them to the disruption and division of the churches. It is the sad truth however that they have never learned the difference between “express” and “press.” The mere expression of their convictions (assuming them to be honestly held) is not the problem. It is the agitation of their views, their pressing for their acceptance, their sense of mission and evangelistic fervor with regard to their propagation, and the consequent strife, division, and broken fellowship which they engender. I have had the sad expreience of following brother Holt where he has labored and propagated his views. The strife, heartache, open division, and totally “unChristlike” dispositions of his supporters and converts to his views which I found in these places are of themselves sufficient evidence of the error of his concepts and the manner of their promulgation. In a word, the attitudes of his converts to his position are the best commentary on the character of his position. J. C. Hare perceptively observes: “To form a correct judgment concerning the tendency of any doctrine we should look rather at the forms it bears in the disciples, than in the teacher, for he only made it, they are made by it.”

Some General Observations

It probably was only a male chauvinist who said, “A woman never believes she loses an argument, because she always knows she is misunderstood.” Brother Holt seemingly believes he is victorious in every confrontation over his views, because he knows he is, as before noted, never understood and always misrepresented.

Brother Holt has an iconoclastic fixation. He is forever tilting at spiritual windmills which he mistakes for giant aberrations from Divine truth. Sad to say, like Cervantes’ ” Don Quixote, ” he has a lot of good ” Sancho Panzas ” who do not see things as he does, but who loyally try to protect him from his indiscretions. They excuse his activities on the ground that “he is saying a lot of things that need to be said” (they do not specify). In the words of an old proverb, we answer, “He buys honey too dearly who licks it from thorns.”

That our brother possesses many fine qualities, much ability, and preaches needed truth on many subjects is not denied. However, I agree with Charming who wrote: “The consistency of great error with great virtue, is one of the lessons of universal history. But error is not made harmless by such associations. False theories though held by the greatest and best of men, and though not thoroughly believed, have wrought much evil.” It remains true, as Thoreau wrote: “No imposition is too great for the credulity of men.” Therefore, we cannot safely tolerate the pressing of erroneous concepts and practices, however innocuous they may seem at the time, for the most insignificant aberrations have in time become the occasion of great evil.

Our brother has overshot Jerusalem and landed in Babylon doctrinally. If he practices his teaching, his movement will either die or become an organic monster. Movements launched on a plea for the freedom of absolute individualism and repudiation of all organization, as is Holt’s invariably cease to be individual and become organically autocratic and tyrannical the moment they are soundly established. Yet, as Franklin P. Jones said relative to matters political, “There’s nothing wrong with extremists that trying to reason with them won’t aggravate.” Hence, I close pessimistically relative to any hope that what we say will affect for good him who is the object of our remarks.

Conclusion

What I have written are solely my sentiments. Others who write in this issue are not expected necessarily to endorse all said, nor should they be held accountable, but I want it said, and I will defend it if necessary. Furthermore, though I know not what others will say in this issue, I wish to be held accountable for only that which I personally say.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 19, pp. 578, 606-607
October 4, 1990