Truth Magazine

By Edward O. Bragwell, Jr.

Sometimes brethren will suggest that the church engage itself in some questionable activity or claim that there would be nothing wrong with the church taking certain actions. Conscientious brethren, as well they should, immediately ask for authority for such actions. All too many times when asked for such authority the response is, “Well, we do many things that we don’t have authority for.” This they believe justifies them doing whatever they wish.

What should be our response to such dangerous reasoning? First of all, one who makes such a statement should be asked to give examples where we act without authority. If he is unable to cite any examples then his assertion can be assumed to be false. If, however, he does cite examples then we need boldly to answer his charges and show him by what authority we do the things we do. If, in fact, his charges are correct and we do not have authority for our actions, then we must cease the unauthorized practice at once.

What if it is true that “we do many things that we don’t have authority for”? That does not justify doing other things for which we have no authority as many brethren would like us to think. Instead, it means that we must cut those things out and not do them anymore. We, indeed, would encourage anyone to point out any unauthorized practice that we are engaged in so that we might correct the matter. We want to do all things by the authority of the Lord (Col. 3:17).

Most of the time when brethren make such claims, they are just trying to shake our confidence and justify their own unauthorized actions. Don’t be rattled by their tactics. Instead, “be always ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear” (1 Pet. 3:15).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 14, p. 437
July 19, 1990

By Max E. Tice

At the outset I wish to make clear that the congregation at Danville is not being promoted as some type of super-church or brotherhood seminary. The responsibilities of this congregation are the same as those of any other local church. The special training classes which are provided may also be offered by churches that have the interest and resources to do so. In fact, we eagerly encourage it. At the same time, we also acknowledge that many congregations do not currently have such a program and wish to inform interested students of the availability of this one.

A Teacher’s Perspective

Having completed my first year as an instructor here, I have some impressions which I would like to share with our readers. First of all, I feel the church here should be commended for its dedication to such an effort. Even in the face of a crushing blow (the death of Kelly Ellis), the brethren have kept it alive. Many young men have been trained to preach here. Others (including ladies) have seized this opportunity to enhance their teaching skills. Hopefully, this will continue for years to come.

What can a student expect who comes to Danville? If he is willing to devote two years of his life to an in-depth study of the Word, he can anticipate emerging as a much more effective worker in God’s kingdom. Those who planned these classes years ago had a keen perception of student needs. Areas of study are as follows:

Courses taught by Steve Wolfgang – Genesis and the Law, sermon preparation, Ezekiel, Revelation, Joshua, Judges, Kings, Chronicles, inspiration & authority of the Scriptures, period between the Testaments, Job & Wisdom Literature, hermeneutics, Bible history & geography, church history, Minor Prophets, Christian Evidences, doctrinal issues within the church, & Jeremiah.

Courses taught by Max Tice – The New Testament Church, Acts, Philippians, Titus, Philemon, James, 1,2,3 John, Jude, Hebrews, Ephesians & Colossians, Gospel of John, Corinthian epistles, denominational doctrines, Romans, 1,2 Timothy, Psalms, Daniel, the Synoptic Gospels, Isaiah, Galatians, 1,2 Peter.

All courses are taught at a college level. In fact, a comparison between the Danville program and those offered at many Bible colleges demonstrates how complete it is. Students who wish to acquire greater knowledge of the Bible without having to pay high tuition costs or having to take many non-religious courses will find these classes a welcome alternative.

I have thoroughly enjoyed my first year at Danville and look forward to next fall. I am deeply impressed with Steve Wolfgang’s vast store of knowledge and believe students will have a difficult time finding a more capable teacher, especially in the field of church history.

A Student’s Response

“Two years ago, I heard about the special classes being offered in Danville, Kentucky for the benefit of anyone who wanted to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord. I made the decision to invest two years of my life in the study of the Word. I thank God I did. I have learned more about God’s Word during this period than some people learn in a lifetime. These classes have provided me with valuable resources.” – Tim Richardson

Another Student’s Response

“After making changes in my job, I moved to Danville to take these special classes. The schedule allows me to work part-time and still have time to attend social functions. I feel the classes will help me to develop spiritually and will provide resources for growth through the years. Hopefully, I can return home and start ladies classes so that I can pass this information on to others.” – Susan McFadden

Conclusion

It bears repeating that the Lexington Avenue congregation is not attempting to become the “brotherhood seminary.” Any congregation that is able to do so is encouraged to train men and women in a similar manner. However, if there is no such effort in your area, you might consider this opportunity.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 15, p. 461
August 2, 1990

By James R. Cope

One of the most difficult tasks any Christian faces as he seeks to teach the ignorant or unconverted is that of overcoming their personal emotions and sentiments as these factors loom heavily before the minds of those the Christian endeavors to teach and reach with the simple word of God. Almost inevitably we are told of relatives and friends who believe thus and so and are straightway informed of the subject’s feelings toward these persons. Again we are faced with various “experiences,” “feelings of pardon,” and other irrational and emotional reactions which must be overcome if the truth of the gospel is to prevail. We think it terrible that otherwise intelligent people will close their eyes to the light of God’s word by appeals to sentiment and will seek refuge in personalities, persuasions, and practices untaught in the Bible. But must we leave disciples of Christ to find the same emotional reactions?

(1) Premillennialism. Some years ago when the premillennial issue was hot a very common occurrence was to hear the defenders of, apologists for, and sympathizers with R.H. Boll talk about his goodness and piety. This man’s adherents sought refuge behind his piety and prayerful life as if these characteristics immunized the faith of brethren against the gospelless doctrine of premillennialism with all of its speculative implications which he and his disciples pressed upon the churches. His gentleness did not prevent theories concerning a future reign of Christ on earth from dividing churches almost everywhere this materialistic doctrine found rootage. Some of the finest congregations in the land were split asunder because of the doctrine Boll espoused and yet teaches. Many who had known him intimately and walked with him in the common faith in earlier years became exceedingly caustic and critical toward all who sought to show brethren the destructive nature and eventual consequences of the doctrine this man propounded. While many denied believing what Boll taught, they nevertheless held in contempt preachers who warned against him because of the falsehood he preached. Judging by speech and actions, theirs was a sentimental attachment to a man rather than his teaching. But even if this explanation be accepted, their defense of a false teacher had many practical effects of the doctrine itself, for where the apologists’ influence held sway there was ever the possibility that the false teaching himself might enter with his destructive dogma. Even where the teacher did not enter, such an apologetic attitude toward the man himself made for an unhealthy spiritual condition among churches which condition can be diagnosed as a soft, apologetic, compromising attitude toward error generally. Emotions ran away with reason and sentimental attachment dethroned the truth of God. We should remember that all the sympathetic stir in the world in behalf of a teacher can never make what he teaches the truth of God.

(2) Instrumental music. A glance at the controversy over the introduction of mechanical instruments of music in worship shows that many persons who favored the instrument were ruled more by sentiment than reason based upon revelation. “Who could object to such a harmless little instrument as a melodian?” “The swelling sounds of a giant pipe organ stirs our spirits and puts us in a mood for worship which can come from nothing else! ” “Everybody else uses the instrument in their worship and we like it; so why not have it!” “I love the beautiful sound of an organ!” These and similar statements were heard three generations ago as those who ran headstrong over the objectors to the instrument established their shrines. “Never mind about divine authority!” “Do not quibble over trivialities!” “We want our organ and our organ we shall have!

Wild sentiment displaced reason. Unbridled passions spurned the word of God. This was the attitude then. It has occasionally showed up even in our own generation over the same issue. But who is so brazen among those who respect the silence of the New Testament as to justify this emotional display? The first two commandments that God gave ancient Israel prohibited their having another God before Jehovah and the making of graven images, yet when Moses tarried in the mount these were the very first commands Israel trampled under foot. In a fit of frenzy they disregarded Moses, rebelled against God, molded the golden calf, and worshipped before the creature they had devised. It has happened before. It can happen again!

(3) Evangelization. A century ago when the fight over the missionary society was on, those who opposed the society were told that they had no interest in preaching the gospel to the lost. In the Millennial Harbinger (June, 1866) C.L. Loos, an ardent advocate of the human missionary society, was evidently directing his remarks toward Benjamin Franklin, Tolbert Fanning, and David Lipscomb when he wrote:

The evidence from all quarters of our land, and from other lands, demonstrates that this great matter of missions organized associations for cooperative efforts to send the gospel abroad – is really no longer a doubtful question among us; that it is decided and accepted. The whole matter has been thoroughly sifted in the past quarter of a century, and may now be regarded as settled . . . those few who have been of late days persistently and noisely denouncing missionary associations, have by the unsanctified bitterness and rudeness of their attacks, given full evidence of the causes of their opposition – a lack of knowledge, of an enlightened piety and a true spiritual culture. To attempt to teach such men is well-nigh useless, as it is almost hopeless.

In May, 1867, issue of the Harbinger, W.K. Pendleton wrote similarly as follows:

Let men who have missionary work . . . take counsel together . . . and let us not be disturbed, or distracted in our work, by outside railers, who seem to rejoice in nothing so much as their own success in presenting the preaching of the gospel.

David Lipscomb was caricatured as an old woman with a broom trying to sweep back the ocean tide all because he opposed the society as an agency through which churches could do their work.

To the person who understands that the silence of God’s word must be respected as much as its express commands, a sentimental appeal by one who insists on having instrumental music simply because he likes it is completely irrational and absurd. The same person can understand why an apology for the personal piety of a false teacher does not nullify his false teaching. That same individual can see why opposition to a human missionary society to do the work God gave the church to do does not mean that the opposer of the society therefore also opposes preaching to the lost. Yet that same person who will not be swayed by sentiment over the instrument, the society, or a false teacher, may be swept off his feet by some other emotional appeal just as foreign to the teaching of the New Testament.

(4) Schools. In these days when objections are raised to churches supporting schools from their treasuries, some who are ruled more by sentiment than reason, cry out, “Oh, all these folks think about is how they can hurt the schools. They are against Christian education and the colleges! ” We have known where these or similar statements have been made about men who have contributed liberally of their time and money to Christian colleges. It seems never to occur to some people that a sincere criticism can be offered without the one offering it attempting to kill the thing itself or the influence of the person criticized.

(5) Benevolent homes. When objections are filed against churches contributing to independent benevolent institutions such as orphan homes and homes for the aged, this same ungoverned emotionalism explodes with these or similar expressions: “You don’t believe in providing for the aged and infirm!” How irrational! What emotional instability is revealed! How utterly untrue!

(6) Centralization. When a word is sounded in criticism of some of the big-time, brotherhood-wide, high-pressure propaganda campaigns which have become so familiar within recent years, it is not uncommon to find the critic lambasted as being opposed to foreign mission work, church I i co-operation,” and anything else apparently that the promoters decide to promote. Are these brethren on foreign fields who disagree with “centralization” of funds and forces and who have giver, their time and talents to gospel work, “anti-missionary”? Are these who have sacrificed the comforts of America for hardships in Europe and Africa against preaching the gospel to those in darkness? Are they opposed to evangelism abroad? Emotional upheavels by the brethren at home have not deterred them from going ahead in a campaign to save souls and build up the Lord’s church in distant lands. Their unselfish attitude and willingness to serve under adverse conditions should forever stop the mouths of those who say that the critics of centralized control are against preaching the gospel. That same charge was hurled at David Lipscomb when he cried out against the missionary society, but the charge was false then even as it is false now.

Expressions and reactions like these mentioned are indicative of how much some persons are controlled by their personal feelings rather than an intelligent analysis of the word of God. When such reactions occur they are usually an admission of weakness or vulnerability of the cause or position occupied by him who flings the charge. Fairness demands that we say this is not always the case. In some instances persons hurling such wild charges simply have no idea of what the issue is all about. They are honest but honestly ignorant of the point being discussed. They have such a smattering of the biblical principles governing these activities that they fail to grasp the criticisms made.

Perhaps all of us are to a greater or lesser degree controlled by our emotions. It is easy for us to get mad when we should be praying. It is easy to “pop off” when we should be listening with a view to learning. But whatever may be said in defense of emotions, it can never be truthfully said that divine principles are proved by sentiment. (1) They are not proved by uninspired examples or practices. (2) They are not proved by uninspired men. (3) Likewise they are not proved by personal sentiment, feelings, or emotions. Again we insist: let us not forget these fundamental considerations in any study of the organization, work, or worship of the church.

(James R. Cope wrote an informative and incisive series of eight articles on “The Problem of Institutionalism ” in The Preceptor, April through November 1953. The section reprinted above appeared in the September issue.)

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 15, pp. 450, 469-470
August 2, 1990

By Bill J. Humble

Ever since the earliest days of the restoration movement journals have exerted a great influence in molding brotherhood thought. Entering thousands of homes over widespread areas, these papers have served to acquaint brethren with the progress of the church elsewhere, draw brethren together, and crystallize thinking on brotherhood problems.

The influence of brotherhood papers is well illustrated by such journals as the Christian Baptist, Gospel Advocate and many others. Established in 1823, the Christian Baptist was published by Alexander Campbell while he was still preaching among the Baptist churches; and its influence was so great that when Campbell finally withdrew from the Baptists, thousands joined him in the work of restoring New Testament Christianity. A half-century later, David Lipscomb published the Gospel Advocate, and almost single-handedly, he stayed the tide of digression in the South. Let no one doubt the influence of religious journals!

Good or Bad?

The question is often asked, “Has the influence of these papers been good or bad? Have they been guardians or disturbers of the faith?” Unfortunately, the answer must be: both! The influence of the papers, as with men, has been both good and bad. The papers have done much to advocate the restoration of the New Testament church; they have converted thousands to this plea; they have drawn the brethren together and encouraged them to greater zeal and activity. This is the positive good side, but the bad is also there. The papers have sometimes abandoned and opposed the restoration ideal, promoted unscriptural ideas, and broth controversy and division to the brotherhood. There have been some who have exclaimed disgustedly, “The church would have been far better off had these papers never existed.” OF some papers, but not all, this is true!

Surprisingly, the same paper has sometimes been both a guardian and disturber of the faith at various periods in its history. The restoration movement would never have grown so rapidly during the decade of the 1830s had it not been for the Millennial Harbinger, but after congregations had been established in many areas, Campbell became the champion of a national missionary society, through which these congregations might cooperate in evangelism. For nearly ten years before the American Christian Missionary Society was established in 1849, Campbell wrote article after article pleading for such “cooperation.” Had it not been for the influence of Campbell and the Harbinger, the society would not have been established in 1849. Now, was the Harbinger a guardian or disturber of the faith? It was both; for upon the society question, at least, Campbell abandoned the very principles which had given birth to the paper.

The American Christian Review, edited by Benjamin Franklin in the decades after the Civil War, was at one time the most influential paper in the entire brotherhood; and it opposed the missionary society vigorously. Franklin’s Review was undoubtedly a staunch guardian of the faith. Yet in later years the Review fell into the hands of brethren who used it to oppose “located preachers” and colleges operated by Christians. The Review thus became a disturber of the faith, promoting views which cannot be defended by God’s word, sowing discord and division among brethren.

Since papers have been, and will probably continue to be, both guardians and disturbers of the faith, how may we determine whether the influence of any particular paper is good or bad, whether it is defending truth or disturbing brethren? The following general principles should help us to answer this question.

Guardian of the Truth

If a religious journal is to be a guardian of the faith:

(1) It must stand for the faith! This is actually the fundamental test, and all else is secondary. If a paper is teaching the truth, it is a guardian of the faith. The paper may not be large and influential; it may not be popular. (David Lipscomb was always pictured as a “mean ill-tempered little man” by the majority who favored the society.) But only truth, not circulation or influence, can determine whether any journal is defending the faith.

If a paper has a scriptural attitude toward truth, its writers will admit, “This paper is fallible, but the New Testament is infallible.” The readers will be admonished to search for a “thus saith the Lord,” not a “thus saith the paper.”

(2) It must allow brethren to discuss questions andproblemsfreely. This spirit of free inquiry lies at the very heart of the restoration ideal. The idea of “restoring” New Testament Christianity implies a search for long-lost truth and this necessitates study, inquiry and discussion. Our brethren have always believed that as they study scriptural questions and weigh controversial issues, they draw nearer the truth, and the religious papers have always served as a medium through which these discussions should be conducted.

The willingness of such great editors as Campbell, Franklin and Lipscomb to open their columns to those opposing views is an index to their greatness. Searching for truth, they encouraged frank discussions of controversial issues.

(3) It must be interested in presenting truth in love, not in crucifying some brother, or group of brethren. The paper must be an instrument of truth, not a weapon of character assassination. Let the brethren ponder their problem, but let them do it in love and understanding.

Disturber of the Faith

On the other hand, a religious journal becomes a disturber of the faith whenever:

(1) It teaches false doctrine. Again, this is the basic test. When a paper defends a teaching not in harmony with the New Testament, when it “rides some hobby” (as brethren often put it), the paper becomes a disturber of the brethren. The paper need not be small to be guilty. It could be a large and influential journal, even supported by a majority of the brotherhood; but when it teaches false doctrine, it is disturbing the faith. Just after the Civil War, it was the small and unpopular Advocate which said, “Each local congregation is sufficient to do the work God has given it,” while the larger papers favored the society.

Today, there are some papers which disturb the faith by teacing that it is wrong for brethren to operate Christian schools. They charge that the school is doing the work of the church, but these papers err in failing to distinguish between congregational and individual responsibilities. On the other hand, some brethren go to the opposite extreme and insist that churches may subsidize the colleges out of the church treasury. But if the college is not doing the work of the church, what right does it have to be supported out of the churches’ treasuries? None! When a paper teaches that the college may be included in the church budget, it is a disturber of the faith just as certainly as if it went to the opposite extreme!

(2) The paper becomes “the” authority. There is nothing more dangerous than for a paper to become so influential with a segment of brethren that they say,” I have such confidence in that paper and its editor that I’d believe nearly anything I read in it.” When brethren become that loyal to any paper, the seeds of disaster have been sown. Unwittingly perhaps, the authority of men has been submitted for revelation.

This is exactly what happened in the decade of the 1840s, when the way was being prepared for the society. When Campbell began to plead for a means by which the churches might work together, the majority of brethren said, “We have such confidence in Bro. Campbell and the Harbinger that we just don’t see how he could be wrong. ” And disaster struck!

(3) The paper abandons the “sound doctrine “for which it once contended. We do not preach “once safe, always safe”; and the fact that a paper once was sound in teaching does not guarantee its perpetual soundness. The American Christian Review, once an effective instrument for good, later became a disturber of the faith.

Even today, brethren who once preached the autonomy and all sufficiency of the local congregation shudder when some preacher announces that he will discuss these same themes: for they fear that some “pet institution” may be criticized. Could it be that principles are being abandoned?

(4) The paper refuses to allow brethren to study vitalproblems. When any paper stifles free discussion of current issues, it assumes an ornniscence which Campbell, Lard and Lipscomb dared not assume. When thousands of sincere brethren conscientiously question some practice and ask that it be studied in the light of the New Testament, and when some paper defends the practice by saying, “We are teaching the truth on this question, and no hobbyist on the other side has any right to be heard,” that paper is treading the brink of disaster. Let brethren discuss the questions which confront the church! Truth will prevail! But let no paper become so arrogant that it says, “What we teach is the end of truth. No further discussion is necessary.”

Let all papers say, “Our quest is for truth; our spirit is brotherly kindness; our aim is to present all views fairly.” And a grateful brotherhood will rise up and say, “These papers are all guardians of the gospel” (The Preceptor, July 1956).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 15, pp. 449, 470-471
August 2, 1990