Truth Magazine

By Steve Wallace

“Church of Christ Chaplains” are increasingly becoming a common part of Air Force chapel staffs. There are many such chaplains in Germany alone. It is our purpose in this article to look at some of the responsibilities of a chaplain, some pertinent passages from the Bible and some conclusions we may draw.

Having already had the opportunity to talk to chaplains on a number of occasions, I recently visited an Air Force Chapel with the expressed intention of learning more about a chaplain’s duty. As always, I found everyone to be very cordial and helpful. The chaplains and their staff take their work seriously and provide many helpful services to Air Force personnel and their families. However, I do not believe that these facts alone make them right before God.

A Chaplain’s Work

The Air Force generally recognizes three main religious groups within which all chaplains function: Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant. The “Church of Christ Chaplain” falls into the category of a “Protestant.” While a chaplain’s primary responsibility is to meet the spiritual needs of those of his “faith,” he must also preach for denominations whose ministers are away. In addition to this, he must take his turn preaching for the “Protestant Service,” a general service for members of all Protestant denominations. Besides these things, we need to note some of the rules governing the work of a chaplain.

He must fulfill his responsibilities under certain constraints. For example, there are rules against “proselytizing. ” In other words, a “Church of Christ Chaplain” must be careful what he says while preaching for Protestant services. He could neither preach the truth on how one becomes a Christian, nor expose the sinfulness of the false practices so common among Protestant denominations. In addition to the above, if a chaplain begins to teach that which his faith does not believe and loses endorsement from the church he represents, he must separate from the Air Force within 24 hours. These are some serious restrictions.

Being a Chaplain is Not A Work for a Christian

(Note: By “Christian,” I mean someone who has been baptized “into” Christ, ‘for the remission of sins” [Rom. 6.-3; Acts 2:38]).

1. A New Testament Evangelist Must Reprove Error. Paul tells Timothy to “preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2). Paul exemplified this not only in his dealings with brethren but also with those in religious error. The record in Acts shows that he regularly went into synagogues and “so spake” (14:1) that people were moved to either be for Christ or against him (k:f. also 17:1-5; 18:1-6). When we add to this Jesus’ constant reproving of the error among the Jews (e.g. Matt. 12:1-13) and the example of the prophets of the Old Testament, it is difficult to imagine a child of God taking on a work which forbids him following their example. The “Church of Christ Chaplain” finds himself On the plains of Ono (Neh. 6:2), unable to do the work of the Lord.

2. Fellowships Error. The word “fellowship” simply means “sharing in common” (Vines). When a Christian actively takes part in a denominational service he is sharing in that which is wrong (cf. 1 Cor. 10: 16-2 1). Because he cannot speak against that which is wrong he lends his influence to it. Those who see him in services will believe that he agrees with what goes on in Protestant services because he takes an active part. Because he takes an active part, he can never argue for the sinfulness of it. It would be like teaching against drunkenness with a bottle of whiskey in your hand. Fellowshipping error is a sin that must be repented of before one can ever teach against error.

Some Consequences

1. If one Christian can worship regularly with non-Christians all can. I am unable to see how this consequence can be denied. What is right for one Christian is right for all.

2. Christians should cease their opposition to denominational doctrines. Such teaching as salvation by faith only, worship with the church of your choice, baptism by sprinkling, etc., can be fellowshipped without opposition by our “Chaplain brethern.” The rest of us can therefore do the same. If we can be a part of something we ought not oppose it.

3. Churches of Christ will become full-fledged denominations. Since the “Church of Christ Chaplain” must have the endorsement of the church he represents, some churches of Christ must be sanctioning Christians becoming chaplians. It is hard for me to see how a church can sanction a member being part of denominationalism without admitting that is is a part of denominationalism itself. When we add to this the fact that many in Churches of Christ recognize saved people in all denominations, this consequence seems undeniable.

Conclusion

The practice of Christians becoming chaplains is simply a compromise with error. What is needed today is what has always been needed: Christians need to stand apart and opposed to error. The line between darkness and light must be made clear both by our teaching and by our example (1 Tim. 4:16).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 20, pp. 609, 630
October 18, 1990

By Mike Willis

The Lord revealed that “the fearful” would be cast into hell along with the unbelieving, abominable, murderers, whoremongers, sorcerers, idolaters, and liars (Rev. 21:8). Moral courage, therefore, is a character trait which those who desire to be saved must develop.

What Is Courage?

Webster defines courage as “the attitude or response of facing and dealing with anything recognized as dangerous, difficult, or painful instead of withdrawing from it; the quality of being fearless or brave.” Its opposite is cowardly conduct. Rahab described the loss of courage in the hearts of the Canaanites as Israel moved to invade the promised land: “And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you” (Josh. 2:11). A courageous man is one who is brave, willing to face his enemies and difficult circumstances, without withdrawing in fear.

What Gives A Man Courage?

Several passages show us what gives a man courage. Here are several suggestions which may help to develop courage:

1. One can have courage because of the Lord’s promise never to leave or forsake him. When the Lord commanded Joshua to be courageous, he said, “There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life: as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee. Be strong and of a good courage” (Josh. 1:6-7). The Lord’s promise never to forsake his children gives them courage to face every foe (Heb. 13:5-6).

2. The knowledge that our enemies are the Lord’s enemies gives us courage. When young David went out to fight Goliath, he took courage when facing the Philistine champion from the knowledge that Goliath was the Lord’s enemy. Goliath defied the armies of the living God (1 Sam. 17:26). Hence, David asked, “Is there not a cause?” (1 Sam. 17:29)

We can take courage so long as our enemies are the enemies of the Lord as well. Wherein those who are against us are the Lord’s servants, proclaiming his divine will, we have reason for our hearts to melt within us. So long as our enemies are the Lord’s enemies, we can take courage.

3. A trust in the providence of God inspires courage. Moses told Israel to trust in their God. He said, “The eternal God is thy refuge and underneath are the everlasting arms” (Deut. 33:27). A knowledge that the Lord in heaven is aware when a sparrow dies and even knows the number of hairs on my head inspires me to trust in his watching, caring, and keeping of his saints. “The Lord is thy keeper: the Lord is thy shade upon thy right hand. . . . The Lord shall preserve thee from all evil: he shall preserve thy soul. The Lord shall preserve thy going out and thy coming in from this time forth, and even for evermore” (Psa. 121:5-8).

4. A wholesome fear of God inspires courage. A fear of man creates timidity, cowardice, hypocrisy, fawning, and other ugly attributes of character. However, a wholesome fear of God creates courage in men’s hearts. Jesus inspired his disciples to withstand those who threatened their lives by saying, “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28)

Esther showed this reverence for God when she risked her life to save her people. She had a greater fear of the Lord than she had of her husband king Ahasuerus or Haman. Mordecai exhorted her to have courage saying, “For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then there shall enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place; but thou and thy father’s house shall be destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” (Esth. 4:14).

5. A confidence that God hears and answers prayer inspires courage. David found the courage to face his enemies in the knowledge that he could present his plea to God and God would answer his prayer. There are many examples of this in the psalms, but one is Psalm 140. David prayed that the Lord would deliver him from the evil man (140:1) saying, “Thou art my God: hear the voice of my supplications, O Lord. O God the Lord, the strength of my salvation, thou hast covered my head in the day of battle” (140:6-7).

6. A confidence based on past deliverances inspires courage. When David faced Goliath, he found courage based on the Lord’s having delivered him from the paw of the lion and the bear (1 Sam. 17:37). As we reflect on the difficult circumstances from which the Lord already has extricated us, we can find assurance that he will deliver us from present problems and face them with courage.

We Still Need Courageous Christians

1. We need courageous young people. There are many enemies facing our youth. They face the temptations of the devil daily, including the temptations of sensuality (pornography, petting, lasciviousness, fornication, etc.). They face the temptation to hide the sin of fornication through abortion. They face the temptation of drunkenness, whether induced by alcohol or drugs. They face the temptation of peer pressure to conform to the world in speech, dress, music, etc. They are tempted to conceal their faith, if not give it up altogether. We need young people with the courage to stand in the hour of temptation.

2. We need courageous parents. Our mothers face a tremendous assault from the devil. Today’s woman is tempted to conformed to this world’s mold of what a successful woman is, to minimize her role as a mother, to refuse to be submissive to her husband, and to look for a career outside the home. We need courageous young women who will stand against this temptation and be the kind of woman God depicted in Proverbs 31:10-31, instead of the modern woman depicted in the magazine and on the TV.

We need parents who will not allow the devil to determine their agenda for their children. Our world is sports crazy and many parents are wasting precious time with their children driving them to baseball, football, basketball, and track practice. Then they participate in choral groups and any number of other extra-curricular activities so that they will be well rounded children. The result is that parents are running in circles, filling their own and their children’s lives with secular activities to such an extent that there is no room for God and his church. We need courageous parents who will say “no” to this agenda and quietly take control of their homes, feeding their children the spiritual milk of the word.

3. We need courageous evangelists. Evangelists face a temptation to “tickle the ears” of those who assemble for worship (2 Tim. 4:3). Some members do not want a preacher to expose their sins of worldliness. They do not want a preacher who condemns them for allowing their children to attend the prom, for wearing the immodest dress of cheerleaders and twirlers, for going mixed swimming on public beaches, or social drinking. They do not want a preacher who rebukes them for putting other things ahead of God when they miss worship for social activities. They do not want a preacher who preaches against unscriptural divorce and remarriage. They do not want a preacher who exposes and opposes denominationalism by name. They do not want a preacher who calls the name of false brethren among us. Preachers are tempted to shape the message to please the people. We need men with courage filling the pulpits – men who will speak the word of God without fear of being fired.

4. We need courageous elders. We need men who meet the qualifications listed in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 and who have the courage to lead the congregation in obedience to God’s word. We need men willing to withdraw from the ungodly, regardless of how influential the family is in the congregation. We need elders who will stand behind the preaching of the word, even though the message may offend some prominent members.

We Need The Courage to Confess Sin

David manifested courage when he openly confessed to Nathan his sins with reference to Bathsheba (see Psa. 32, 51). David confessed two sins which were punishable by death – adultery and murder. Not knowing what lay ahead of him, he openly confessed his sin.

We need this kind of courage today. Christians need to openly confess their sins without regard to what circumstances may befall them. We should not try to hide our sins by clothing our confessions in ambiguity, but openly should say, “I have sinned.”

None of us lives sinlessly (1 Jn. 1:6-10). We stumble and fall from time to time. Jesus is willing to forgive our sins when we confess them to God and turn away from them in repentance. We need the courage to break away from the devil’s bondage, turn away from our sins, and openly confess them to God and others, as may be necessary (Jas. 5:16).

Conclusion

We witness the moral courage of several Bible characters such as Esther, Daniel, David, and Jesus. Let us learn to emulate their courage by building our faith in God.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 20, pp. 610, 629-630
October 18, 1990

By Ron Halbrook

The Examiner attracts men and women as writers who are becoming looser and looser in their thinking and who are embracing a wider and wider variety of errors and false doctrines. People who follow “the words of our Lord Jesus Christ” follow “the doctrine which is according to godliness.” That is, the true teaching of Christ produces a growing reverence for God’s Word. This results in deeper convictions, greater stability, and greater courage in standing for the truth in opposition to sin and error of every kind. But those who “teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words,” become fascinated with “questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth” (1 Tim. 6:2-5).

Human theories and speculations are built with “words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.” That is why it is imperative that we be fully committed to learning and “rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker” (2 Tim. 2:14-17). Error is degenerative and debilitating. “Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13-14).

When a man or a movement attracts doubters, cynics, and malcontents of every description, godly people are forewarned even when they do not fully understand the nature of the particular error which is being propagated. When false teachers of every variety find aid and comfort in the teaching of some leader or spokesman, it should be evident that something is badly wrong. People who are departing from the truth and pronouncing anathemas upon faithful brethren have a way of finding each other and compromising with each other in their newfound sense of unity.

The Ancient Adversary and Accuser

Let us turn the pages of the calendar back several thousands of years and picture Cain organizing the Angel of Light and Freedom Ministry, Inc. in order to publish a religious journal called The Adversary and Accuser. The paper first warns about abuses in worship such as following the right form without the worshiper living for the Lord day by day. Who can deny that such an accusation is sometimes valid, and who would fail to be the adversary of such an abuse? Next come articles defining worship as a good feeling about God and not a set of forms and patterns which must be “slavishly” followed (i.e., followed to the letter). When Cain proposes offering “the fruit of the ground” in place of a blood sacrifice, he lashes out at those who adhere to the blood sacrifice as traditionalists and legalists (Gen. 4:3-8). As time goes on, this paper publishes articles by Jannes and Jambres bitterly denouncing the faithful word delivered by Moses and affirming that every man has the right to discover and to interpret his own faithful word in his own way (2 Tim. 3:8).

An extended series was jointly authored by Nadab and A bihu in an attempt to prove that fire can be produced from any and every source for the burning of incense since there is no direct prohibition against it. After writing a strong article entitled “The So-Called Law of Exclusion,” they decided to experiment with their teaching. The series abruptly ended at that point, but The Adversary and Accuser invited other writers to take up the torch (Lev. 10:1-3). A man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath day published a warm endorsement of The Adversary and Accuser along with a hot protest against having been put “in ward” by those who thought religion required dotting every i and crossing every t. Next, a report was published from Korah, Dathan, and Abiram explaining that they wanted to be the voice of the average Jew in his tent who was tired of Moses and Aaron acting like “little tin gods.” This movement gained a popularity until the time of the great earthquake and storm which destroyed hundreds of people (Num. 16).

“Love, Peace, and Unity”

A powerful article by King Ahab on “Love, Peace, and Unity” bitterly accused Elijah of causing trouble by preaching that there is only one right way in religion. Ahab scorched the narrowminded and the little-minded, and spoke in glowing terms of a new day of freedom, tolerance, and unity-in-diversity with the prophets of Baal. Naturally Elijah demanded a debate but afterward King Ahab said that he had outgrown debates and could not see where they did any good. His wife wrote a probing column as well (1 Kgs. 18-19).

When the Angel of Light and Freedom Ministry, Inc. held its annual forum near the temple in Jerusalem, outstanding speakers from among the Pharisees and Sadducees were included on the program. Their articles began appearing in The Adversary and Accuser, explaining that we all believe in the same God and the same Bible even if we do interpret it differently. An editorial said that no one can understand everything in the Bible perfectly anyway, and furthermore, the Pharisees and Sadducees were very zealous and we all have much truth to learn from them. A strong article advised discontinuing the constant rounds of debates with these fine groups and expressed regret that they had been much maligned by such expressions as “beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees” (Matt. 16:6).

A letter from Hymenaeus and Alexander appeared saying that in spite of a certain preacher who tried to put them out of the brotherhood, they are continuing to be diligent and active in their own way. The editor bemoaned that their names had often been repeated in a bad light by some of the preaching brethren, and that these good men are actually the victims of spiritual cannibalism (1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim. 2:17; 4:14). The editor also explained that some of the preaching brethren had reported that Phygellus and Hermogenes had turned from the truth, but in reality they had found new freedom from traditional doctrines (2 Tim. 1:15). The editor further explained that he did not fully agree with the way Hymenaeus and Philetus interpreted the resurrection, but he was glad to say they are very pious men and brilliant scholars who have broken free from the shackles of patternism and biblicism (2:17-18).

Demas had about given up on religion because he was tired of the petty bickering over the use of intoxicants and the making of laws over matters of opinion like immodesty, gambling, and dancing. When he discovered that The Adversary and Accuser was opposed by the same preacher who exposed his conduct, his interest in religion was renewed and he began to write regular articles (2 Tim. 4:10). Diotrephes reported in his column that he had been misunderstood and mistreated by John but that he had no intention of submitting to every doctrine and demand written by John (3 Jn. 9). Jezebel’s regular column fought an uphill battle for women’s rights in church and for views on moral issues which were more in keeping with the times rather than with the written codes of a past generation.

The Modern Examiner

Such a conglomeration of writers and views would suggest to people trained in the Scriptures that something indeed was wrong. In a similar way, The Examiner continues to attract men who have departed from the truth and who are wandering in many different directions. Extreme radicals like Olan Hicks and various Christian Church writers are now involved. What is there about the teaching of The Examiner which draws men who hold so many conflicting and apostate doctrines? A brief survey of The Examiner’s writers will help to show the very real danger that, when we begin to tolerate one kind of error, we open the floodgates to all kinds of false doctrines.

For twenty years Charles Holt has made a speciality of opposing New Testament teaching on the nature of the local church with an appointed eldership and a regular treasury. He recommends the World Bible School and Action as “one of the greatest efforts I have every known in preaching the gospel” without any exposure or warning of the features of a missionary society involved in this organization (Examiner, January 1986, p. 10). Image magazine is also recommended in spite of its extreme liberalism which includes the so-called new hermeneutics, which is a denial that we must follow the Bible pattern in all things (May 1986, p. 17). Fred O. Blakely (Highland, IN) is a Christian Church preacher who edits The Banner of Truth. He commends Holt and vice versa (Sept. 1987, p. 28).

Holt recommends Olan Hicks (Searcy, AR) as a faithful Christian whose writings on divorce and remarriage are a blessing (Mar. 1986, p. 28). Hick’s article in the same issue rejects “the traditional theory . . . that either death or fornication on the part of the mate is absolutely required or the next marriage is a practice of adultery” (p. 8). Hicks is a long time institutional liberal who now advocates fellowship with the Christian Churches. His “special ministry” is going all around the country teaching error on divorce and remarriage. In a written discussion with Tom O’Neal many years ago, Hicks claimed the church can sponsor recreation as a method of evangelism. Another radical writer in The Examiner is Norman Parks (Murfreesboro, TN), who believes a woman can assume any and all positions of public work and leadership in the church. He has always been associated with the leading edge of liberalism represented by Integrity and Mission magazines.

Fudge, Ketcherside, and Hook

Edward Fudge (Houston, TX) is a writer who worships with the Bering Drive church which embraces every denominational holiday, women leading in public services, and instrumental music on special occasions. Ed departed from apostolic teaching twenty years ago and led many young men into the wastelands of liberalism and interdenominational unity movements (ecumenicism). Another writer, Stanley Paher (Reno, NV), has gone so far as to claim that “honest, sincere pagans” can be “saved, heaven-bound” by an instinctive moral law without the gospel of Christ (Ensign, Nov. 1987-Jan. 1988; Jan.-Feb. 1989).

The Examiner was repeatedly praised by W. Carl Ketcherside (Nov. 1987, p. 25; May 1989, p. 31). He pioneered the unity-in-diversity doctrine among churches of Christ from the mid-1950s so as to embrace all so-called branches of the restoration movement, Protestant denominations, and even Roman Catholicism. Holt commends and publishes the writings of Cecil Hook (New Braunfels, TX), who rejects “patternism” and “restorationism” in favor of unity-in-diversity on a wide range of subjects, including premillennialism, institutionalism, instrumental music, drinking, mixed swimming, gambling, abortion and many other matters (July 1989, p. 12; Holt on Hook’s book Free in Christ, Jan. 1988, p. 21). Buff Scott, Jr. (Cherokee, IA) is a fellow traveler of Ketcherside and a maverick with an agenda much like Holt’s. Scott had a debate many years ago affirming the ignorant heathen are saved without the gospel (Truth Magazine, Jan.-Mar., 1959). His articles appeared in The Examiner and he recommends it in his own paper (May/June. 1986, p. 7).

Many of the men who write in The Examiner have been in flux or transition toward looser and more liberal views. For instance, Steven Clark Goad (Mesa, AZ) wrote in the Gospel Guardian in the early 1970s, but he went with liberalism and says in The Examiner that we ought not to argue over church support of human institutions and social activities, nor does he care what day we take the Lord’s Supper or whether we have a choir (Mar. 1988, p. 1; Jan. 1989, p. 14). During 1978-82 Dan Rogers (Lake Village, AR) repudiated liberalism but in recent years has become a flaming liberal who asserts that there is no sin in a man’s looking “upon the beauty of” women in “miniskirts, shorts, halters, tubes, swimsuits,” or even in “absolute nudity” (his response to Halbrook, “The Swimsuit Question,” Truth Magazine, 7 June 1979). Rogers charges that the church of Christ is a denomination, Christ’s law on marriage and divorce does not apply to alien sinners, an “opposition to the use of instrumental music in worship is wrong” (Ensign, May 1989). Finding common cause with Holt, Rogers writers in The Examiner.

During the 1985 Holt-J.T. Smith debate at Lake Jackson, Texas, Dusty Owens (Temple Terrace, FL) was defensive of Holt’s views on the eldership but said he was still studying the matter. How far has he come in his study? He repudiates as “human wisdom” establishing Bible authority by direct command, apostolic example, and necessary implication. He sees no sin in mixed swimming, shorts, dancing, drinking, gambling, or the church’s taking up a collection on any day of the week (Sept. 1987, p. 12). Where will he stop?

Terry Gardner (Indianapolis, IN) moderated for Holt in the debate with Smith and has written several articles upholding Holt’s views in The Examiner. Terry says that those who insist on following the Bible pattetn for the church’s helping saints only in benevolence are guilty of putting ritualism over love (Mar. 1986, p. 3). Those who oppose the false teaching of Homer Hailey on divorce and remarriage commit “spiritual cannibalism.” When Terry opposes those who oppose Hailey’s doctrine, is he eating cannibals? Terry summarizes,

According to brother Hailey, his view is that “God’s attitude toward individuals who seek salvation in Christ, though they have been married, divorced and remarried previously … (that God accepts them) in that condition, having been baptized after their marriage.”

If Homer is absolutely wrong on this issue, does it really make any practical difference?

Yes, it matters whether we follow the Bible pattern for morality, for the home, and for the church. Anyone who has been out teaching people knows that this issue of divorce and remarriage must be faced if a sin-cursed world is to be brought to repentance.

The Circle Gets Larger, and Larger, and . . .

Holt may say that he does not endorse all of the error that is appearing in his paper, but plenty of it is appearing without any answer, response, or exposure. Lee Harrow (Wills Point, TX) openly defends instrumental music in worship (May 1990) and Calvin Warpula (Stillwater, OK) makes a detailed defense of institutional liberalism (July 1989). The sad truth is that The Examiner has succumbed to the error of unity-in -diversity, and the result is that the circle of unity is getting larger and the diversities of error are multiplying. Doctrinal looseness is becoming outright liberalism, and this liberalism is proceeding toward license, licentiousness, and libertinism. People who have a tender conscience, a deep reverence for God’s Word, and a genuine desire to walk in the straight and narrow way of Christ must before warned never to start down the pathway where “evil men and seducers . . . wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.”

Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 19, pp. 602-604
October 4, 1990

By J. Wiley Adams

Evidently the Lord knew God’s people would have to deal with false prophets. This has always been the case. Now is no exception. We not only have false prophets or teachers but we also have to combat them. In this there is no alternative if we are to remain faithful to our heavenly Father.

In Matthew 7:15-21, Jesus gave us the acid test for determining if and when one is a false prophet. “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” Let us consider some of the fruits of The Examiner, its editor and its cloister of writers.

The Examiner, edited by Charles Holt (coupled with its predecessor, Sentinel of Truth which was also edited by Holt) has caused no little concern in the church of the Lord from the late sixties until now. Prior to that time going back a few years, Holt had believed that elders could be single men and that confessing Christ prior to baptism was only a ritualistic formula without scriptural precedent. My remembrance of brother Holt’s early work is this: the gospel meetings he held were characterized, in addition to much excellent material, with a flare for the unique, the unusual, and a disposition to be risque with Divine Truth. To differ with him was an open invitation to intimidation and sarcasm. He was right. He was always right. He was not to be disputed or called into question. When some elders in the church here and there would not let him run the church, he became bitter, cynical, and belligerent. Seething with hostilities he went into secular work and for a long time kept a low profile as far as brethren were concerned until later on in the mid-sixties the opportunity presented itself to edit Sentinel of Truth. After causing much trouble with that publication, he ceased being the editor when his financial backer died, and a little later on the journal ceased publication. Once again he dropped out of immediate sight but played pattie-cake with W. Carl Ketcherside, the liberals, and some radical elements here and there. Then he emerged again into public view with The Examiner. This paper was only a reprint of the former one, Sentinel of Truth. Attracting quite a number of brethren who were disgruntled about something or other, he seems to have set out with determination to finish wrecking the church, if he could. He has not and he will not. Together these two publications have created havoc all around the country among God’s people. Now we are well able to evaluate the fruits of these two misadventures in religious journalism.

Since Holt’s doctrine denies the scriptural existence of the local church as an entity or corporate body of believers, where is the congregation set up by Holt and his followers according to his views which will serve as the right example of whatever he is talking about? To establish a local church of any kind would deny his premise because he says in one of his cute-isms, “there ain’t any such thing,” meaning the local church.

And where can we see a place where Holt’s type of eldership is exemplified? Why even talk about elders at all since elders without a flock to oversee would be a paradox. He maintains that elders are just older men (or women), that they get to be elders simply by growing older, that the qualifications were never meant to be what we have said they are, that elders are not appointed (except by the Holy Spirit), that they just start out to lead the flock, taking the oversight thereof, and the flock falls in behind them of their own accord.

Actually Holt’s position on the local church alone makes any discussion of elders, flocks, the organization and work of the church, the treasury money or anything else of like kind, absolutely superfluous. Everything he believes stems from his disavowal of the local church as an entity or corporate body. That being true why does he even bother to beg the issue and discuss other matters which of necessity grow out of and are related to the local church issue. There is really only one basic issue: the scripturalness or unscripturalness of the local church. Still he talks of congregations, elders (by his definition), seeks to dismantle the church buildings or sell them, dubs all gospel preachers who are supported by the gospel as hirelings and all elders as tin gods who are lording it over the brethren. Yet he has established his own organization called Truth and Freedom Ministry, Inc. in Chattanooga, Tennessee for the purpose of propagating his heretical ideas. He is the head of this organization which shuns not to beg, coax and persuade its readers to send their money in to help further their cause. His money-making pleas are surely reminiscent of the so-called TV evangelists of our day.

While not having any congregations operating according to his plan he seeks to infiltrate these unscriptural “things” called local churches with his clandestine “stake-outs” to spy out the land and report to their leader. Win them over by private teaching if you can. This is their plan.

In this writer’s own experience a few years ago, some of Holt’s “disciples” who were withdrawn from for heresy, sued the individuals in a local church in a civil suit for the corporate property. They, while denying the local church, petitioned the court to declare themselves to be the entity instead of those they had sued and thus become the owners of the property! Verily the legs of the lame are unequal. Needless to say the court system of the State of Georgia was able to see through this inconsistent facade.

Holt has been joined in these efforts by some who evidently are possessed of the same ego and arrogance as himself. It is like playing a record over and over again. Holt has trained them well. All of these seem to have something against Bible authority in the church. While speaking of love their material is filled with venom and hate. Together they have sent their magazine all around to brethren far and wide on a free basis. Godly brethren have had to interrupt their good labors, preachers and elders alike have had to stop and fight these abominable heresies. How can it be other than the work of Satan and those involved as being Satan’s agents? Churches in disarray, brethren arguing over these issues needlessly, good brethren discouraged – all because of the embittered tirades of a little “pontiff” and his college of would-be cardinals.

Brethren, there are certainly some things in the churches here and there which need to be corrected. Who would deny it? But in the name of all that is right let us not allow the churches to he destroyed because of these abuses. We need not tear down the whole building in order to replace a few rotten boards. We need a repair job maybe but what we do not need is a demolition squad.

As you may have already guessed, this writer speaks from much experience in dealing with the fruits of the teachings set forth in Sentinel of Truth of the past and The Examiner of today. We are not fighting a straw man nor are these matters to be relegated to the realm of “personality squabbles” as some in the past, and maybe now, have been prone to do. All of it makes this writer both sad and indignant. We must continue to fight with the sword of the Spirit, the Word of God, and hack every would-be “Agag” to pieces. We must not and will not give place to the Devil. Brethren, keep up the good fight of faith. God will bring low every evil work for truth will prevail ultimately!

“Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them” (Matt. 7:19,20).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 19, pp. 605-606
October 4, 1990