Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

God designed the church of our Lord to function as the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15). The church at Thessalonica is still an example which we need to emulate today because it was constantly sounding out the Word of the Lord (1 Thess. 1:7-8). Churches which are truly sound in the faith can never be satisfied with merely “keeping house” locally, but are concerned to spread the gospel both locally and in other places. God ordained that laborers would go out into the fields in order to harvest precious souls, supported by faithful congregations of the people of God (1 Cor. 9:14; Phil. 4:15; 2 Cor. 11:8-9). Faithful men need to be stirred up to go into the field to labor and faithful churches need to be stirred up to support them.

In addition to supporting several good men in America, the church here at West Columbia is helping to support men in South Africa, Italy, Mexico, and the Philippine Islands. The elders (Charley Alexander, J.D. Harris, and James Moore) and the whole church here are deeply concerned about the work of spreading the gospel in every place where it is possible. We constantly receive appeals and requests for support, mostly from worthy men, and the elders constantly agonize over how to be most effective in responding to these calls. We try to be as prompt as possible in answering the requests that come here, so that even those we cannot help can make their definite plans. We feel it is unfair to leave a man wondering and waiting indefinitely. The elders suggested that an article should be written informing brethren of some opportunities to help men whom we have found to be reliable and sound in the faith.

David Beckley in South Africa

For a number of years David L. Beckley has been faithfully preaching the gospel of Christ in South Africa (current address 12 Transo Avenue, Helderkruin, 1724 Roodepoort, Republic of South Africa). The church at West Columbia has helped with David’s support from the beginning and receives regular reports about the work he is doing. We have been sending $420 per month but will be able to continue this support only through April of 1989. This appeal for someone to consider David’s need is being made because the elders do not want any impression left that after all these years they are “dropping” David as doctrinally unsound or a troublemaker. With all the prayers, money, and love invested in David’s work, they continue to wish him well and to bid him godspeed.

This change does not represent West Columbia’s cutting back on its program of supporting gospel preachers. In fact, we have made an even larger commitment to help a faithful brother who has labored in the gospel for many years. This man has been faced with many medical bills, is now working with a small congregation, and has never before asked for outside support in his long life of work for Christ. We are stepping in to help him only as a last resort after he contacted a number of other places. Because of our continuing to support both this older brother and brother Beckley through April, the church will be spending more money than we are taking in. We can continue this for a limited time. As one of the elders said, “We will simply have to go forward by faith.”

It is the hope of the elders that by making this public explanation and appeal on David’s behalf, in addition to the fact that his work is well established and well known, David will soon hear from brethren who are willing to make up his loss.

Wayne Goforth In New Mexico

In recent years the church here has been helping several younger men who have come from a liberal-institutional background and who have taken a stand for the truth. We feel these young men have not had an opportunity to make many contacts and to be well known among brethren generally, but we have found them in each case to be faithful and reliable in their work. These men have been going forward in their work in spite of various obstacles and difficulties they have faced. We wish to give them public encouragement and endorsement, and to suggest that brethren consider their continuing needs.

Wayne Goforth and his family are located with the small church which meets at 25th and Hawaii in Alamogordo, New Mexico (current address 2309 Princeton, Alamogordo, New Mexico 88310; phone 505-434-6225). We receive regular reports from Wayne about the progress of his work in Alamogordo. Not only does Wayne uphold the truth on various liberal and institutional issues, but also he continues to teach the truth on marriage, divorce, and remarriage. He believes that God’s marriage law applies to all men and that God gives the right to remarry only to the innocent party who puts away a fornicator.

As a result of his stand, his support is being cut off from the North Las Vegas church of Christ in Las Vegas, Neveda. Jack Freeman is the preacher there, and he and the elders there were united in that decision.

Below are the questions asked by the North Las Vegas church through Jack Freeman:

1. “When one is guilty of adultery, and divorced by his spouse for that cause, can he scripturally remarry?” Wayne pointed out that Jesus said such a person commits adultery by remarriage (Matt. 19:9).

2. “Must he remain unmarried the rest of his life to be saved eternally?” Wayne said yes, only the person who put away a fornicator is given the right to remarry (Matt. 19:9).

3. “If he does remarry, must he put the second wife away in order to be saved?” Wayne said yes because true repentance involves restitution – we cannot continue to live in sin. John told Herod that Herodius did not belong to him though he had married her (Mk. 6:17-18).

4. “Question from 1 Cor. 7. When the believer is deserted and divorced by his unbelieving or nonChristian wife, must he remain unmarried the ‘rest of his life?” Wayne said that the man can be reunited with his mate or must remain single, but that no marriage can be considered in the absence of immorality. Jesus gave only one reason for divorce and remarriage, and Paul did not contradict Jesus.

Thank God there are still young preachers who will not bow their knee to the Baal of false teaching on this or any other matter simply to retain financial support. Surely someone who loves the truth can respond to brother Goforth’s need in this situation.

Lee Stewart in New Mexico

Lee Stewart came out of the liberal-institutional persuasion some years ago and has developed into a fine young preacher (current address 264 Vista del Rio, Belen, New Mexico 87002; phone 505-864-2567). Lee and his family are working with a group which is small in number but strong in faith, and presently rents a facility that is used for other activities during the week. Tim Stevens, son of R.J. Stevens, helped to get the church started in Belen and continues to help in every way possible.

This small church passed through the fires of trial and purification during 1988 as the result of having members who were unsound on the matter of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. In the course of the brethren’s studying this issue, an arrangement was made for a public meeting open to all the members at Belen to hear Homer Hailey speak on this issue, followed by another such study conducted by the author of this article. In spite of the loss of several members who could not endure sound doctrine, this good church is continuing to go forward in the work of the Lord. Lee is short on his support and it is hoped that brethren will soon respond to his need and encourage the work at Belen.

Mike Baggett in Mississippi

Mike Baggett is another young preacher from a liberal-institutional background who has taken a. clear stand for the truth and has been faithfully preaching it for some time now, working with the Laws Hill church of Christ near Water Valley, Mississippi (current address Route 3, Box 148AA, Water Valley, Mississippi 38965). Brother Baggett and his young family are working with a small rural church and making good progress. Mike has studied with Paul Keller and Donny Rader, both of whom recommend him for his stand. Bobby Holmes (Lancaster, Texas) and Mark Roberts (Irving, Texas) recently reported on a gospel meeting in which they labored with Mike and the Laws Hill church, and gave a very encouraging report of the good being done.

The church here receives reports from Mike and is thankful for his labors. Much of Mississippi is in dire need of sound preaching and may be considered what is sometimes called “a mission field.” Mike does not have anything like adequate support and has helped, to support himself by maintaining a secular job. While he is to be highly commended for this evidence of his faith, diligence, and responsibility, it would be well for brethren to support him so that he can devote his full time to the needs of this area in Mississippi.

Carl Lungstrum in Colorado

There is much need for preaching the gospel in the state of Colorado and Carl Lungstrum is working with a small church at Pagosa Springs (current address P.O. Box 1861, Pagosa Springs, Colorado 81147). Like the other men mentioned above, Carl is doing all he can to make contacts in the community both through public efforts and private teaching in the homes. All of these men including Carl have provided informative reports about the details of their work and have kept the church here well informed. Carl is still lacking over $506 per month in his support but has been able to continue by making sacrifices and by the help of an individual. Surely brethren somewhere will take an interest in his effort in Colorado and contact brother Lungstrum.

In the time the church at West Columbia has been helping to support the above men, we believe they have proven themselves worthy of consideration and support in the gospel. We urge brethren who may be in a position to help or who may have a special interest in the areas where these men are working to get in contact with them as quickly as possible. Make you own investigation and reach your own conclusions. We have found all of these men perfectly willing to talk with us when we had questions about their stand in the truth or about some phase of the work they are doing. You will find them all open and responsive. May God richly bless their efforts in the truth, is our prayer.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 4, pp. 108-109
February 16, 1989

By Dennis C. Abernathy

We are all familiar with the slogan “Just Say No To Drugs,” and a good slogan it is. Drug abuse is a blight on our society and the Lord’s church has not been spared its ugly encroachment. This “Just Say No” concept is found throughout the Scriptures, and I want to use the passage found in Titus 2:11-12 as a “springboard” for our thoughts in this short article.

“For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age” (NIV).

Today we are hearing a great deal about “positive” preaching. We need positive preaching. There is nothing wrong with positive preaching. But there is something wrong when all you hear is positive preaching. Life is not all positive. The gospel of Christ is not all positive. This verse makes this clear. We are to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives – that is positive! But it also teaches us to say

No” to ungodliness and worldly passions – that is negative! With these thoughts in mind, consider the following:

1. Just say “No” to fornication. “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled” (Heb. 13:4). Sexual fulfillment is for the marriage relationship. Fornication was a very common sin in the first century and it is a very common sin today. This term is defined as “any form of sexual immorality, unlawful sexual relations; thus may be used of any specific sexual sin such as intercourse between two unmarried people.” Young people need to say “No” to premarital sex and married people need to say “No” to extramarital sex. The church of the Lord needs to say “No” to fornication in its fellowship.

In our society one is bombarded with the temptation to involve himself in sexual immorality. This is true of the unmarried as well as the married. We see the consequences all around us. Virginity before marriage is considered “old hat,” and remaining true to one’s mate for life is considered “not the norm.” Our country is decaying from sexually transmitted diseases.

The Bible says, “Flee fornication” (1 Cor. 6:18). The Hebrew writer says, “but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4). This ought to be plain enough. But I’m afraid that some are harboring fornicators rather than instructing them to “flee” from the sin. When Paul found that sexual immorality existed among the church at Corinth he told them not to keep company with such a brother (1 Cor. 5: 1,11). But some brethren today not only keep company but install such into positions of leadership. They say “they will just let God judge the matter” on the day of judgment. Yes, brethren, we need to say “No” to fornication.

2. Just say “No” to immodesty. “In like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works” (1 Tim. 2:9-10). See also 1 Peter 3:1-6.

Immodesty is prevalent today. The apparel people wear is indicative of their attitude and heart. One’s dress ought to be proper or appropriate for one professing godliness. What the world deems proper and appropriate may not bet appropriate for the Christian. I can understand why people of the world dress the way they do. The standard they use is not the standard of the Christian. If a person does not’ consult God concerning his conduct, he is not going to reach the same conclusion with respect to morals, dress, etc. as the person who does consult God’s law.

The Christian is to set his mind or affections on things above, not on the things of this earth (Col. 3:1-2). The Christian does not “mind earthly things” because his “citizenship is in heaven” (Phil. 3:19-20). It is such a shame the way many dress today. The church has not been spared the shame in, this regard. Brethren, is it proper and appropriate for Christians to expose their bodies before the world in the immodest apparel so prevalent today? Does nothing embarrass and shame us anymore? We need more preaching and teaching on what is modest and immodest. Elders need to instruct the local church over which they watch on this matter. We need to say “No” to immodesty both in our teaching and in. our example.

3. We need to say “No ” to apathy and indifference. One of the greatest problems facing the church is apathy. William Schlamm wrote, what he said should be the epitaph of our, society: “This civilization died because it didn’t want to be bothered.” I wonder if we couldn’t rephrase it a bit and correctly describe many Christians today: “The Lord’s work was left undone and the church died because the members. didn’t want to be bothered.” Titus 2:13-14 says:,” while we wait for the blessed hope – the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.”

Apathy abounds in the church today. Lost souls are not taught (Mk. 16:15-16). Erring brethren are not restored (Gal. 6: 1; Jas. 5:19-20). The rebellious, disobedient and unfit are not disciplined (Tit. 1:11,16). The unfortunate, downtrodden and sick are not attended to (Matt. 25:31-46). Brethren are not encouraged and the teachers of error are not refuted by the trustworthy message (Tit. 1:9). The list could go on and on. the underlying cause is apathy – we don’t want to be bothered!

Brethren, we need to say “No” to apathy, indifference and mediocrity and “always give ourselves fully to the work of the Lord” (1 Cor. 15:58).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 4, p. 107
February 16, 1989

By Larry Ray Hafley

Brother Jackson says my initial review proves “the old adage, ‘The hit dog yelps.”‘ If so, what do his “extensive comments” prove? If my review proved “the old adage,” does his reply also prove that “the hit dog yelps”?

Bill replies “through a series of numbered points.” We shall do likewise and blunt the tip of his points. If you have not done so, before reading further, see my first article in this exchange in the December 1, 1988 issue of Guardian of Truth.

“(1) Who caused the present liberalism?” Bill says that my logic is represented like this: “brethren taking a bite of food in a church building results in a Family Life Center, and ladies meeting in a class room to give a gift to a bride-elect has led to the craze for a gymnasium.”

No, brother Bill, that is not my logic or contention. Here it is; here is the basis for the liberalism that has “led to the craze for a gymnasium.” Brother Jackson and others have contended that the church may build dining rooms (“fellowship halls”) and similar rooms for the purpose of eating, drinking, hosting parties, wedding showers and boy scout troops. That has led to the gym “craze.” Certainly, at best, it has not deterred it. Bill, do not deceive yourself. The gyms were not caused by a brother taking a bite of food or by a bride receiving a gift in a classroom. They were spawned by the attitude that said churches can build special rooms and facilities for social and recreational purposes, even though the Scriptures do not authorize the church to engage in such works.

There may be, as Bill charges, some “liberalism” among my “own fellowship,” but it is despite what I teach, not because of it. Brother Jackson made the charge. He offered no proof. Bill, what do I teach that begets liberalism?

Thanks, Bill, for the reference to the “craze for a gymnasium.” Surely, Furman Kearley, Guy N. Woods and the rest of the Gospel Advocate crowd will be pleased that you view their gyms as a “craze.”

“(2) A straight line between two circles proves anything!” Bill ridiculed the charts with his comment about a “straight line between two circles,” but he did not deal with the arguments that were made. Would a “straight line between two circles” using, church support of David Lipscomb College and the missionary society prove anything? Suppose, Bill, that you showed the following charts:

Next, suppose a liberal preacher from the gym “craze” (perhaps the editor of the Gospel Advocate), ridiculed your charts by saying, “This was the first tactic I saw in these brethren,” i.e., “a straight line between two circles proves anything!” Would that constitute a reasoned response? Would that answer the arguments you made and that you attempted to demonstrate by means of lines and circles?

Yes, the church is “its own missionary” society. But it is not the means or methods of preaching and teaching. It, the church, must provide the various modes to teaching. Also, the church must provide facilities for benevolent care (1 Tim. 5:16). The church is not the means or methods it employs, but it is the organization that secures the care.

No, “The church is not a home!” Has anyone ever said that it was? We agree, then, the church is not a home. But neither is the church a meetinghouse. Still, it is able to build and maintain a meetinghouse. Though the church is not a meetinghouse, a material building, it is able to provide one. Likewise, the church is not a home; it is not a place to dwell, but the church is able to provide one.

Should churches establish building and construction companies and let those corporations choose the site, dimensions and facilities for the meetinghouses of brethren all over the country? No, each church selects its own location, hires a builder and determines the size and shape of its own facilities.

Even though the church is not a meetinghouse, it does not have to fund a separate organization in order to have a building in which to meet. Even though the church is not a home, it does not have to fund a separate organization in order to have a building in which the needy receive care.

Roy Lanier, Jr., one of Bill’s fellow laborers, recently answered Bill’s argument very concisely:

Some say the church is not a home and thus can contribute to something else to do the work of a home. That sounds right plausible, particularly when it is trumpeted, “elders cannot be elders over a home, only over a church.” Well, neither are elders considered principals over a school, but they do have schools and classes (most often on Sundays and Wednesdays) which teach the Bible! Would it be possible therefore to not oversee such classes, but contribute to some outside institution to see that such teaching is done (call it perhaps “Bible Classes Inc.”)?

Then some would reply, “The church is a school.” To which it is replied the church is just as much to be the home for the needy as it is to be the school for the members. The church can function as much as a home as it can a school. Just as elders do not do all the teaching, so they would not do all the child caring. Just as they would see that teaching is done, they would see that caring is done. If this be not true, then God gave the church a responsibility it is not equipped to do!” (Roy Lanier, Jr., “Relationship of Churches and Institutions,” manuscript of a speech delivered in Nashville, Tennessee, December 2, 1988).

Brother Jackson, I trust that you will respond to brother Lanier’s argument.

Note this somewhat awkward sentence from brother Jackson. “And, brother Hafley’s article proves they have not changed, and still cannot see that the church is commissioned by the Lord as its own missionary instrumentality, but that when it comes to child-care, and if the church had an orphan, when the church thus received such a child it would still have to provide for it a home! The church is not a home!” Conclusion: Churches may send funds to a benevolent society that it may provide care for the needy.

Now, note this somewhat awkward sentence, parallel to that of brother Jackson above. “And, brother Jackson’s article proves they have not changed, and still cannot see that the church is commissioned by the Lord as its own missionary instrumentality, but that when it comes to childeducation, and if the church had an uneducated child, when the church thus received such a child it would still have to provide for it a school! The church is not a school!” Conclusion: Churches may send funds to educational societies (schools, colleges) that they may provide education for the unlearned. What do you say to that, brother Jackson?

“Saints Only”

Brother Jackson is concerned about the “saints-only” doctrine that was, he says, developed “in our times.” Let us see some “saints-only” doctrine that truly has been “developing in our times.”

Bill believes churches cannot do their benevolent work. They must set up benevolent boards or societies which will do the work. The churches support these benevolent organizations. Now, Bill says a church can fund a society built and maintained by brethren, but he does not believe a church can send money to a Baptist or to a Catholic Orphan Home organization. Does that not smack of “saintsonly” societies? Bill’s position says:

Just when did this “saints-only” (benevolent board operated by brethren) versus non-saints (benevolent board operated by Baptists) begin? Did these “issues” begin “developing in our times”? Have Bill and his brethren “received this ‘revelation’ in these latter-times” that churches of Christ can send to organizations operated by brethren but not to those managed by Catholics?

“(3) The manufactured patterns.” See Acts 11:27-30. That is the pattern of cooperation to which I subscribe. My esteemed brother himself said that “the church in Antioch sent goods to the brethren in Judea, and that the funds went to the elders (Acts 11:27-30)” (Bill Jackson, The Southwesterner, Vol. XV, No. 47, September 14, 1988, pp. 1,2). So I believe and teach.

That the disciples in Antioch sent relief to the brethren in Judea, sending it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul is my contention, my Bible pattern (Heb. 8:5; 2 Jn, 9). That “the church in Antioch” sent funds to the Jerusalem elders who in turn dispersed the funds to other churches in Judea is Bill Jackson’s pattern. Which pattern is in the Bible? Which one of us has a “manufactured” pattern?

Foy E. Wallace said:

But every article of late with even an attempt to deal with this issue has referred to the case of Antioch in Acts 11:29-30 as a solid example for centralization practice. It is not an example of what is being done. . . .

The passage reads: “Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea: which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.” The first thing to observe is that the disciples in Antioch sent the relief to the elders where the brethren dwelt in Judea. . . . There were churches in Judea: “the churches of God which in Judea are in Christ Jesus” (1 Thess. 2:14). The passage in Acts states that the disciples in Antioch sent relief to the brethren that dwelt in Judea, and sent it to the elders, obviously where the brethren that needed the relief dwelt. There is not so much as an intimation in this passage that money was sent to the elders of the church at Jerusalem for all Judea. The passage does not even mention Jerusalem nor elders at Jerusalem. It merely states that relief was sent to the brethren that dwelt in “Judea,” and that it was sent to the “elders” by Barnabas and Saul. What elders? The elders in “Judea.” Wherein Judea? The elders where the brethren dwelt. So the passage certainly does specify what elders and where. Acts 11:29-30 is not a case in point for what some brethren are promoting in the way of a general eldership as a board of benevolence and missions for all the churches (Torch, Vol. 1, No. 2; pp. 25-27).

Bill mentions “the ‘anti’ rule” and “the ‘traveling dollar’ doctrine!” Wonder if he has an “anti rule” that permits fellowship halls but denies “the craze for a gymnasium”? Wonder if there is an “anti rule” that would permit a sponsoring church to collect funds from many churches to build fellowship halls:

But would Bill oppose “the ‘traveling dollar’ doctrine” if the sponsoring church were to build gyms and Family Life Centers (which are mutants from Bill’s “craze”)?

Now, Bill, would you “have each congregation to set its own policies in these areas” (building gyms), or would you manufacture patterns and “set them for all the saints”? I suspect brother Jackson has an “anti rule” or two that would put the brakes on some of his “‘traveling dollar’ doctrine!”

“(4) 1 Corinthians 16.1,2 double-talk. ” Brother Jacks ignored the argument I made on this passage in my initial review. Study it carefully in the December 1, 1988 issue of Guardian of Truth.

Brother Jackson is the man who says “that what is said in regard to benevolence monies cannot be true when it comes to evangelistic monies,” for he says “benevolence monies” and “evangelistic monies” can be sent to a benevolent society but not to a missionary society. He says “benevolence monies” can be sent to a benevolent society operated by brethren, but not to one run by Lutherans. He says “benevolence” and “evangelistic monies” can build a fellowship hall but not a gymnasium or a Family Life Center. Talk about “double-talk,” indeed! Perhaps brother Guy N. Woods or brother Furman Kearley, editor of the Gospel Advocate, would like to help brother Jackson clarify those matters.

The pattern of 1 Corinthians 16:1,2, involves, among other things, the time for brethren to lay by in store. The text does not authorize every use to be made of the money. Other texts do that. It is the sole text for the time that a church may take a collection for any of its activities. Again, see the argument made in my first review.

Yes, Bill, “the 1 Corinthians 16:1,2 contribution is the only one allowed by the Word.” Yes, Bill, churches may engage in evangelism and other appropriate (scriptural LRH) works.” No, Bill, I do not “come to 1 Corinthians 16:1,2” as the “basis” for “every legitimate church expenditure based on 1 Corinthians 16:1,2 authorization.”

The pattern as to when the church takes a collection is in 1 Corinthians 16.-1,2. The complete pattern for the use of the church’s funds is not found in 1 Corinthians 16:1,2. Parallel wise, the pattern as to when the disciples come together to break bread is in Acts 20:7. The complete pattern of the purpose of the Lord’s supper is not found in Acts 20:7. The passage that cites the purpose of the communion does not give a time (1 Cor. 10, 11). However, when we put those passages with Acts 20:7, we have the time, the frequency, and the purpose. Likewise, with the funds of 1 Corinthians 16:1,2 and the other authorized works of the church. Again, this argument is in my first review of brother Jackson.

“(5) Some of ‘brother Jackson’s brethren.”‘ Brother Jackson wishes to divorce himself from some of his brethren. He does not want to be lumped with them. (Bill, would the editor of the Gospel Advocate, Furman Kearley, be in that list, or in that lump, since he now advocates the gym “craze”?)

The brethren named and identified in this paper to whom Bill referred, are not promoting principles that I espouse. However, the brethren Bill wishes to deny are promoting liberalism based on the very principles that he accepts. As proof thereof, the editor of the Gospel Advocate recently endorsed “church camps,” gyms and Family Life Centers.

To do so, he drug out brother Woods’ old argument, in loco parentis, to justify church support of such things. Bill Jackson will not deny brother Woods’ argument, but he will deny Kearley’s use of it. Let Bill show us, then, how it applies to his case on the one hand with regard to benevolent societies but not to gyms and camps.

But when brother Charles Holt, for example, teaches his views, he goes against every principle for which I contend. He does not use my arguments to support his conclusions. But when brethren who Bill now wishes to repudiate contend for gyms, camp grounds and Family Life Centers, built and maintained by churches, they do so upon the very principles that he uses to justify his “fellowship halls” and church sponsored bridal showers and girl scout troops. This is the difference, Bill.

When some of Bill’s brethren say that church support of colleges is as scriptural as church support of benevolent societies, they are using his principles to establish their point. N.B. Hardeman and Batsell Barrett Baxter both contended that church support of colleges (like Abilene and Lipscomb) and church support of benevolent organizations (like Schultz-Lewis) “stand or fall together.” What Bill uses to justify church support of Childhaven, they use to justify support of Abilene Christian University. When brethren I do not agree with begin advocating their views, they do not use the principles of truth for which I contend to justify their stance. See the difference, brother Jackson?

Yes, Bill, you are correct, “what some brethren believe or practice is not the standard of right! ” I have never argued to the contrary. “Again, the Scriptures are the Standard, not the brethren! ” Recognizing that, may we not continue to study and debate our differences in light of that “Standard”?

“(6) The final appeal. ” Bill, I do know why you cannot endorse Herald of Truth. I have known that since the meeting with the Abilene elders at the Getwell Rd. church in the Spring of 1974. 1 have always known that the issue was over the type of “cooperation involved!” Let us continue to discuss, not whether churches may cooperate (they may -2 Cor. 8,9; Rom. 15:25,26; 1 Cor. 16:1-4), but whether one church may act as the agent for other churches, to oversee and direct a work for other churches (1 Pet. 5:2; Acts 14:23; 20:28).

Bill, Calvin Warpula and Furman Kearley, two men who support church sponsored gyms and Family Life Centers, could take your last two sentences and use them against you thusly: (1) “Let the liberals proceed in their liberalism, but let’s you and I know that manufactured patterns, rules on exercise equipment and gymnasiums, rules on church camp grounds and day care centers, rules on church support of colleges, and a dozen side issues that have come from your own ‘anti-ism’ are the things keeping us apart.”

Bill, if they did so, would you see that as an answer or as a means to heal your division with those brethren? Likewise, neither do I. You would insist that those issues be dealt with in light of the Scriptures. Similarly, so do I.

Again, suppose Warpula and Kearley appealed to you, saying, (2) “When you brethren will again let congregations handle their finances and let elders conduct the business in the congregations (translation, meaning – Bill, when you keep quiet about gyms, when you let churches support Abilene, ignoring evolution in the science department of the university, when you will not oppose an eldership deciding to send money to a joint relief effort with the Christian Church, when you cease opposition to Herald of Truth, even with its present format, when you let each church decide without your ‘manufactured patterns’), without your patterns being forced upon them, we can get somewhere in forming a unity whereupon we can stand and mount a powerful attack against liberalism that is real! “

Bill, such an appeal would be “begging the question” so far as you are concerned. It would assume that you and your “anti-ism” are the problem, not their liberal policies and practices. So, here.

What, then? I propose that we continue to study and reason together. Following such a course will result in unity and fellowship among all those who love the way of truth.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 4, pp. 113-117
February 16, 1989

By Bill Jackson

The December 1, 1988 issue of Guardian of Truth, brother Larry Hafley ran an article that had appeared in our bulletin, The Southwesterner, entitled Hobbyism Has Its Snares “Built-In. ” He made extensive comments about our article, proving the old adage, “The hit dog yelps!” We will now make reply to his nn] e . – L series of numbered points.

(1) Who caused the present liberalism? Brother Hafley mentions myself and other faithful men, now fighting liberalism, as originating the basis of liberalism: Loving the little kittens and puppies, but hating the now grown-up cats and dogs. But note his logic (?): brethren taking a bite of food in a church building results in a Family Life Center, and ladies meeting in a classroom to give a gift to a bride-elect has led to the craze for a gymnasium! Convoluted logic (?), indeed! Hafley conveniently overlooks the fact that liberalism is rampant among his own fellowship, and more, on the very last page carrying his remarks is found an article identifying some false prophets among their ranks, one of them being among their champions and chief debaters in the 50s and 60s! And he wishes to pretend that those opposing his “anti-cooperation” views are causing the liberalism of our time!

(2) A straight line between two circles proves anything! This was the first tactic I saw in these brethren, back in the mid-50’s in California. Two circles connected with a straight line proved the orphan home parallel to the missionary society! And, brother Hafley’s article proves they have not changed, and still cannot see that the church is commissioned by the Lord as its own missionary instrumentality, but that when it comes to child-care, and if the church had an orphan, when the church thus received such a child it would still have to provide for it a home! The church is not a home! To try and escape the charge of originating doctrine for God, brother Hafley labors to have me say that no one in history ever thought of uttering any warnings in this area until recent times. I merely pointed out that in the remembrance of many yet living, they recall these issues developing in our times, and they know that “saints-only” benevolence was not even a part of the doctrine at the time! These brethren received this “revelation” in these latter-times!

It is noticed that these men howl over the “anti-cooperation” label, yet virtually all of their arguments rest in that area, except as they adapt to their own advantage within their fellowship. It comes with poor grace to take offense at the label, when they have charged the rest of us as being “liberal” and “apostate” when we refused to abide by their manmade rules!

(3) The manufactured patterns. In his charts (remember the connected circles?), he has the Antioch brethren (Acts 11:27-30) sending to Jerusalem elders, Bethany elders, Joppa elders, etc., and also shows by chart that Jerusalem elders could not have received and then turned to pass a portion on to the Joppa elders. Yet the fact is that his pattern is not set forth in the word, and he cannot prove it! But it is only significant to him because he and his brethren have already fashioned a pattern regarding traveling money. The “anti” rule is: A dollar cannot be received by an eldership and in turn be passed to another eldership! Hafley invents the Bethany, Joppa and Lydda situation, as he and his brethren also invent the “traveling dollar” doctrine! But that has been at the heart of our difference. Rather than have each congregation to set its own policies in these areas, brother Hafley and his brethren set them for all the saints. No, brother Hafley, I cannot join you in this. As I would not be a liberal, neither would I be an “anti”! I’d lose my soul in either course!

(4) 1 Corinthians 16:1,2 double talk. Smarting over 1 Corinthians 16:1,2 being, very clearly, a benevolence passage, and having invented the “anti” rule that what is said in regard to benevolence monies cannot be true when it comes to evangelistic monies, these men came up with the brilliant (?) deduction that 1 Corinthians 16:1,2 is not the basis for evangelistic support! His view on 1 Corinthians 16:1,2 is such that, apparently, if any benevolence is in view for any of those funds, there must be a second contribution then for evangelism and other needs! But, let them talk! They labor to show that the 1 Corinthians 16:1,2 contribution is the only one allowed by the Word (and that is true), and that churches may engage in evangelism and other appropriate works. Back they come to 1 Corinthians 16:1,2 for their basis, which they believe could not have had other purposes in mind, and it all amounts to double-talk. It still has every legitimate church expenditure based on 1 Corinthians 16:1,2’s authorization, which was cited for benevolence! Again, these men have been busy manufacturing patterns for the rest of us!

(5) Some of “brother Jackson’s brethren. ” Brother Hafley ran through a list of what “brother Jackson’s brethren” have believed. May I assure him that what some brethren believe or practice is not the standard of right! Strange that he would thus attempt to use this, when (as I cited) his co-writer lists three of “his brethren” by name and identifies them as false prophets spreading blasphemy! If you won’t buy all “your brethren” are selling, brother Hafley, why try to bind upon me what some of “my brethren” are saying and doing? Again, the Scriptures, are the standard, not the brethren!

(5) The final appeal. Brother Halfley points to some liberal works that now none of us will support, stating that we “fathered, fostered and fought for” them. To this good day these brethren have been unable to see that in the debates in the past, we fought for, not a particular work, but for the cooperation involved! I am perfectly willing to see the death of any work that will not stand for the truth of God, and will rejoice in its demise! But can these men not see that faithful brethren now cannot support the Herald of Truth, for example, not because of the type cooperation it involved, but because of the content of the message!

We will indeed grant the good intention in his final appeal, delivered as though we had left home base! Brother Hafley, I am where I have always been, from the 1940s on. You brethren left the body of the faithful, simply because one segment of the saints were becoming liberal, split thousands of churches, with the divisions apparent in hundreds of communities across the land. Let the liberals proceed in their liberalism, but let’s you and I know that manufactured patterns, rules on food and buildings, rules on weddings and funerals, and a dozen side issues that have come from your “anti-ism” are the things keeping us apart. When you brethren will again let congregations handle their finances and let elders conduct the business in the congregations, without your patterns being forced upon them, we can get somewhere in forming a unity whereupon we can stand and mount a powerful attack against the liberalism that is real!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 4, pp. 112, 120
February 16, 1989