Truth Magazine

By John R. Hurt

How long have you been a member of the Lord’s Church? Is it just me or is the general direction, teaching and preaching considerably different than it used to be? Where is the church of Christ headed? Are we seeing the emergence of a different religious body?

Personal Background and Reminisces

It has been nearly 32 years since I obeyed the gospel of Christ. The first weekend that I went to my girlfriend’s home town to meet her family I learned that the Sunday morning ritual included a delicious breakfast and the expectation that everyone in the house was to attend worship services and class. How could any hopeful, young suitor not conform?

My religious background was from the Presbyterian denomination. I had been sent to church by my parents who seldom attended but believed I needed a “church upbringing.” All I knew about the church of Christ was that they didn’t use an instrument of music in worship. This didn’t make any difference to me. I was in love and wasn’t concerned about the religious beliefs of my girl. I just wanted to get married. I agreed that any children we might have would be brought up in the church of Christ.

Later, after we were married, sometimes I would express my thoughts to my wife about the things that were taught, how nit picking some of them were. The thing that always got me though, was that there was always a scriptural basis for what was being taught. The level of Bible knowledge among members of the church of Christ was very impressive to me. Those people knew their Bibles! It didn’t occur to me until years later how coincidental it was that often on my next visit that very subject would come up in the preacher’s lesson with a very logical, scriptural answer to my question.

So when the same preacher came to our home and began to study a series of basic first principal les- sons with us, my mind was already prepared to look for the things the Bible taught. I was amazed at what the Bible taught about the New Testament church. The lessons that we studied taught me that the New Testament gave God’s people a complete organizational pattern for the believed that Jesus was the Christ. I was taught what the Bible says about salvation. Upon belief I was to repent of my sins (Acts 17:30). Then I was to confess Jesus as my Lord (Acts 8:37). I was then to be buried with my Lord in baptism for the remission of my sins (Acts 2:38). Then I was expected to live the Christian life faithfully until death (Rev. 2:10). What a wonder- ful plan of salvation our Lord and Savior has given to us! How could I not obey?

 

About five or ten years into my spiritual life I began to experience s o m e t h i n g t h at I b e l i e ve m a ny young children of God experience, and I’m afraid from which many never recover. I began to notice that I no longer got the same feeling of “revelation” out of most of the les- sons and sermons. I must admit that I went through a period that some- times I would experience the feeling “not this lesson again.”You see, after a few years we have heard most of the first principal and the majority of the basic doctrinal lessons. Early on as babes in Christ we can experience considerable growth just by being at the services, listening to the preach- ing, and getting up our class lessons. What’s happening is that we are literally being spoon fed the gospel as surely as we spoon feed our little children. This is, of course, the lesson Paul taught the Hebrew Christians (Heb. 5:11-14). At this time in our spiritual growth, it is time to move on to meat instead of milk. We need to understand that to grow we must begin our own study, in addition to what we get from the preaching and the assembly. To be pleasing to God, we must bear fruit and grow in knowledge (Col. 1:10). The danger is that many don’t study properly and grow. Then comes the frequent cry! “Not this lesson again.” When I began to study properly, I never again experienced any such feelings, and I began to experience the “full

assurance,” “wealth” and “treasure” that comes from a personal study of God’s word (Col. 2:2, 3).

 

 

 

Enter Subtle Changes

As I stand on the threshold of sixty and reflect on my years in the Lord’s church, I am struck by a number of things. One is the emphasis of our preaching and teaching as opposed to that of 30 years ago. One of the individuals that I often discussed this with would become infuriated whenever I brought up this point. “It doesn’t make any difference what they taught then,” was his constant reply. This, of course, is true and so was the rest of his point. “It is what the Bible teaches that matters.” How- ever, neither he nor anyone else that I have discussed this with has made any attempt to show me that the vast majority of things taught then were not the truth. There were more lessons on scriptural authority. What was it? How did we establish it? Why was it necessary? When was the last time you heard a lesson about “direct

commands,” “scriptural examples” and “necessar y inference”? How often are these subjects discussed? As we look around us, we hear a call for “the new hermeneutics.” A very liberal call for a new way to interpret Scripture. I’m convinced that one reason that we hear this call is because God’s people have forgotten or never learned the “old hermeneutic”!

Perhaps it’s just me, but I don’t believe we are getting nearly as many lessons dealing with truth and doctrinal error. If the church of Christ is correct in the doctrine we teach, the vast majority of the religious world around us is teaching error and in danger of facing judgment in that condition. Should we not continually remind God’s sheep of the dangers of false doctrine? Should we not continually prepare God’s people to be able to answer and refute error? Should we not do everything we can to try and save our friends and neighbors from the error of their way? Yet, we hear the hue and cry, “we are tired of so much negative preaching.” If Colossians 1:28 means anything, preaching Christ should be at least one half “warning or ad- monition.”

Many brethren are uneasy and worried when a preacher actually mentions the name of a denomination from the pulpit. Certainly, this should not be done in an ugly or distasteful way, but are we reaching the point that many of our brethren have so little conviction that they are ashamed to have their visitors hear the Truth proclaimed from the pulpit? Mentioning denominational names from the pulpit has long been a difference of opinion among preachers. Yet, even the casual student of the restoration movement knows that even then there were preachers that would not mention such names publicly. Make no mistake about it though, the lessons taught then were distinctive enough in nature that the audience easily understood that what was being preached was not the same message being taught by the denomination down the street. When fifty percent of the lessons taught from the pulpit become so general in nature that our visitors can’t distinguish them from what is being taught down at the Methodist Church, mark it down, we are well on our way to apostasy! Apply the fifty percent test! Pay attention, the percentage you find may surprise you.

As with every generation, God’s church is under attack. When I first obeyed the gospel, the charge from the denominational world was that we needed to “preach the man and not the plan.” The charge is the same as it has been for centuries. In the current generation the same charge takes many different forms, but the gist is still the same. From our own brethren we hear “the church is teaching too much on commandments and not enough on Jesus.” “The church is not teaching enough on ‘love.’” More recently we have heard that “we are not teaching enough on the ‘cross of Christ.’” These petty attacks often focus on words and phrases that God’s people have used over the years. The “love” brethren made a big deal out of our reference to “personal work.” They insisted that it should be called “discipling.” Now we hear from the latter group that we are not saved by a plan of salvation but by a Savior. All of these are but attacks on the emphasis of the church. There are in our midst those that would change the focus and teaching of the church of Christ. They cannot scripturally show that the teaching of the church is wrong, but they want to quit teaching the truth knowing this will change the church. If we quit preaching “all the truth” for about a generation, they won’t have to be able to refute sound doctrine. The next generation just will not know the truth!

Greater Spirituality?

As so often occurs, these ideas are usually brought in and pushed by brethren who have in times past been brave soldiers for the truth. Only God in heaven knows what causes the change in their love for the truth and motivates them to push for a church with an altogether different emphasis. The sad, tragic reality is, though, that the pews are already filled with brethren who are ready and even longing for the false doctrine that they are now teaching. There are those that have never grown for lack of personal study and those that have never heard all those sound, basic lessons of times past. The brother or sister that has never grown and matured in the nurture and admonition of the Lord is often seriously intimidated by the charge, “The church is not teaching enough on the person of Jesus.” And make no mistake about it, the church is not teaching as much on the “person of Jesus” or “the cross of Christ” as the denominational group on the corner. Not only are they intimidated by the charge, many of these brethren find, often for the first time in their spiritual lives, they are moved emotionally by these in-depth lessons. Now, not only are these brethren bored and bothered by the same old lessons on doctrine, authority and error, but they see what they feel is a greater spirituality with the brethren pushing for the new emphasis. After all, what could possibly be wrong with spending more time and emphasis centering our thoughts and affections on our Savior? To them these kinds of thoughts and charges seem to be an effective indictment of what they believe to be the out-dated teaching and doctrine of the church of Christ.

Well, perhaps we would do well to consider the question raised. Are we seeing from this new emphasis a greater more enlightened spirituality? I wonder. One young gospel preacher who was caught up in the “love” movement was thoroughly convinced of this. In several discussions, he told me that almost everywhere he went preaching these emotional, “Christ centered lessons,” some member of the church would come up to him and tell him that they had never heard, in all their years in the church, such stirring and moving lessons. Then, although the words were not quite the same, the charge and implication was that most members of the church of Christ are too legalistic, too caught up in rituals in rote and didactic discipline to have any such spiritual depth. He once said of the congregation where I used to wor- ship “they are as cold as a stone.” How could he possibly know what was in their hearts? (This preacher is now a member of a large main stream denominational group, singing in the choir and happily participating in all their many activities.) You see! All this is a judgment against my heart! Somehow, since I am a member of the church, I don’t have any “love” in my heart. Somehow, I don’t appreciate “the person” of my Lord. Somehow, I don’t have enough depth and spirituality to really understand and appreciate the “cross of Christ.”

Have They Been There?

To adequately consider their charge, please permit me the indulgence to reflect a little on personal study habits. I wonder, have most of these brethren really studied God’s Word? I mean have they really studied and meditated upon it? These brethren who clamor to be spoon fed with more spiritual, preaching lessons of the new emphasis, have they been with Jesus during that tumultuous last week of his ministry? Have they followed on each heart rending stop as Jesus was taken from the garden and then taken first to Annas, then to Caiaphas, then to the council, then to Pilate, then to Herod, then back to Pilate? Have they been there and experienced the grief, anger, horror, utter confusion and doubt. Then, have they stood with the three Marys on Golgotha’s dreadful crest and with a crushed and broken heart watched the most evil deed ever perpetrated by mankind? Through the eye of meditation have they ever wanted somehow, someway to ease the awful pain and suffering of the precious Lamb of God led to slaughter by wicked and ruthless men?

Yes, I know that the charges that we teach too much by repetition and rote are really attacking my spiritual depth. Remember, though, when they can’t refute the plain teaching of the Bible, they come after your heart, your motivation or your emphasis. What I don’t see, though, is how little spoonfuls of spirituality will ever lead to depth. How can listening to a few “spiritual” preaching lessons ever take the place of a life time of in-depth study and meditation on the Word of God? Have these brethren ever sat down and read the 119th Psalm? I mean really read and meditated upon it. Read all 176 verses, each dealing with a different aspect of the revelation of God. Have they then, after sober awesome reflection and meditation upon God’s Word, ever wept for joy? What I am describing here is what countless thousands of God’s people experience to a lesser or to a much greater degree every day of their lives. Members of the Lord’s Church need not be intimidated by those who pay a lot of lip service to the “person of Jesus” or “the Cross of Christ.”

Oh, yes, I also know that some of our brethren that accuse us of “rote religion” as well as many teachers from the denominational world that study and reflect on our Lord, can and often do achieve some degree of “spiritual depth.” The young preacher that I mentioned earlier brought up a denominational teacher that he thought was so spiritually deep. It seems he had just read one of his books and was very impressed with his spiritual insight. “How could one so spirituality deep not be in the right relationship with God?” was his query. What he and so many others with similar questions fail to realize is that the “treasures of the wisdom and knowledge” are there for all who will mine them (Col. 2:3; Rom. 11:33). Anyone who studies the Word of God in depth will be moved and built up by the gems of truth that he mines. Many, indeed, are the lessons and insights that are to be found in the inexhaustible mine of truth. With each new discovery comes a feeling of wonder and exhilaration (Ps. 119:18). The glowing coals of truth give off a warmth to the soul. Legion is the name of many who have spent a lifetime finding and meditating on the wonderful positive treasures of God’s Word. However, the real depth and spiritual understanding belongs to the student who re- members what the angel said to Peter in Acts 5:20, “Go, stand in the temple and speak all the words of this life.” If all we do is center our studying on the many wonderful and positive aspects of our Lord and Savior, our spiritual development becomes one sided. Such a student may find himself numbed by the “positive glow.” Forgive me, but isn’t this dangerously close to hedonism? Even if it is not, isn’t this the same student whose one-sided study may lead him to that often reached erroneous and fatal conclusion, that such a good and wonderful God would never send anyone to hell? What good is our study with- out the proper balance? What good is the study of the Lamb (John 1:29) without the study of the Lion of the tribe of Judah (Rev. 5:5)? Such a student forgets that it is Jesus who is the primary teacher of the fires of hell.

Perhaps, you too have talked to or maybe read an article of some brother or sister that laments that they didn’t get to hear many in-depth lessons on the “Cross of Christ” or the “Love of God” because the church where they were preached too much on “the issues” or “commandments.” Consequently, because of this they wail and blame the church for their lack of spiritual growth. Yes, the body is to be edified and the sheep fed, but is the church responsible for the total growth of every soul? Not so! The problem here is they didn’t pick up the shovel and walk into the mine!

Have those who long for positive lessons and spoon fed spirituality ever stood in the hot wilderness of Paran and observed as Korah presumed that he could take Dathan and Abiram, sons of Reuben, and take over the duties of Moses and Aaron (Num. 16)? Have they watched in Godly awe and trepidation as God, through Moses and Aaron, taught the people of God what it meant to presume they could worship God in whatever way they chose? Have they backed away in fearful haste from the tents of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram and then watched in stunned dismay and wonderment as the ground rumbled beneath them and opened up and swallowed them, their tents and their families? Have they in a moment of stunned silence stood aghast in complete belief in the terrible power of God? If through the eye of faith they have been there, they know that God demands scriptural authority for everything we do in our service to him!

Back to the “Ancient Paths”

Brethren, let us not be lulled to sleep by the voices of superficial spirituality. We need not listen to voices that espouse the wonders of the person of our Lord Jesus and teach us to know esoteric marvels of the cross of Christ. Their “more spiritual” pleas are just another call for God’s people to stop work and come down to the plain of Ono. I’m afraid that numerous such calls during the past 30 years have caused the people of God to almost stop the “great work” they have been doing. This “more spiritual” appeal reminds me of the occasion when, as Jesus preached, a woman in the audience “waxed eloquent” and cried out “blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breast at which you nursed.” Jesus replied, “On the contrary, blessed are those that hear the word of God, and observe it” (Luke 11:27, 28). What God’s people need at this point in time is less spiritual eloquence and more?

By Olen Holderby

Those who remain quiet in the name of “peace” have forgotten the “gospel of peace.”

“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly con- tend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). The Williams Translation says, “Carry on a vigorous defense of the faith.”

The word “faith” as used here refers to the gospel — that which was “delivered unto the saints.” We may acquire a personal faith for ourselves (Rom. 10:17). Jude, then, is instructing every Christian to be vigorous in the defense of the gospel. No Christian can be neutral, where the truths of the gospel are concerned, without sinning. It makes absolutely no difference at all who is involved; when truth and right are under consideration the Christian must take his stand for the truth or be an enemy of the same.

I was recently discussing the “issues” with a brother who was serving as an elder in a local church, and he claimed to be sound in the faith. He insisted that the problems of institutionalism should not ever be mentioned publicly unless someone made an issue of them. When I pressed him on this matter, he said, “No sin should be mentioned until someone makes an issue of it.” I asked, “What sins does your preacher preach against?” His reply was, “You will have to ask him.” I did not have to wonder any longer how it was that some attending where he served did not know the truth concerning those things which he, himself, admitted to be wrong.

Neutrality comes in different forms. “Silence” is often a form of neutrality; though, “the middle-of -the-road” may be a more frequently used expression. Regardless of the form in which it may come, neutrality concerning truth is sin. John said, “Dearly beloved, stop believing every so-called spiritual utterance, but keep testing them to see whether they come from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1, Williams Translation). Those who remain quiet in the name of “peace” have forgotten the “gospel of peace” (Eph. 6:15). Paul told the Philippian Christians to strive together for the faith (gospel) and to not be terrified by adversaries (Phil. 1:27-28). The Lord commended the church at Ephesus for exposing the true character of the false teachers (Rev. 2:2). Jesus declared that those who were not with him, and those not gathering together with him were scattering abroad (Matt.12:30). The silent neutral person merely lends support to error and, in reality, assists in corrupting the church for which Jesus died (Eph. 5:25).

Read Galatians 5:19-21 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. It is difficult for me to believe the brother mentioned above does not want such sins publicly or privately condemned. However, this would be consistent with his idea of not condemning the sins involved in supporting the institutional orphan homes and the “Herald of Truth.” Brethren who sit silently by and raise no objections when the church builds kitchens, dining rooms, recreational facilities, arranges for social functions, sponsors scout troops or youth camps, and many other like things, are permitting sin to get a greater hold on the minds of those involved. In order to be free from the blood of all men, teachers of God’s Word must declare the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). When are those in such positions ever going to learn this lesson? He who handles the word of God deceitfully (2 Cor. 4:2) is treading the path of apostasy. This cowardly path of neutrality is packed hard by the feet of them who have betrayed the Son of God, even if they do walk it in apparent pride. They have ignored the example of Jesus (Matt. 23), and they have rejected the commands of his gospel.

Being patient, kind, considerate, and understanding does not preclude our putting up a “vigorous defense of the faith.” Let every teacher read 2 Timothy 4:1-5 and let every elder read Ezekiel 33:7-9, and let both heed the instructions there, carefully! May God help us all to “declare” ourselves for our own justification (Isa. 43:26), and for those who may hear (1 Tim. 4:16).

By Donald Willis         

Paul (Gal. 3:27) affirmed that one is “baptized into Christ” and has therefore “put on Christ.” Galatians 2:20, “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” Christians have a new life, spiritually born again, children of God, saved from sin! How should one live?

Disposition is defined as “the predominating bent of one’s mind or spirit” (Webster’s New World Dictionary). Bent means “an inclining, tendency” (Webster). With Christ living within, what should be the bent of one’s spirit? What is the bent of Christ’s spirit? Since Christ Jesus lives in us, each Christian should exemplify his attitude.

A Christian is humble. God hates the haughty look (Prov. 6:16-19). Jesus rebuked the pride of the Pharisees (Matt. 25:5-12). Paul cautioned, “. . . through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith” (Rom. 12:3). The lyrics of an old song said, “it’s hard to be humble, when you are perfect in every way.” The taught get-ahead disposition is a strong positive self-assertion. James 4:10, “Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.” What more could one say?! Some act as though they are indispensable; as if a thought is not good unless I suggest it! “. . . In lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves” (Phil. 2:3).

A Christian is forgiving. Everyone needs forgiveness, often! All make massive mistakes in thought, intent, and action! Jesus taught us to pray, “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors” (Matt. 6:12); followed by the caution in Matthew 6:15, “. . .  if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” Frightening, isn’t it! If I cannot forgive, I cannot be forgiven! Note: Colossians 3:13, “Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you so also do ye” (my emphasis, DW ). Christ lives in me! As Christ forgives, so also must I forgive. “Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more” (Heb. 10:17). That is how God forgives. Sin is cleansed, remitted, forgotten! Recall Jesus (Luke 17:1-5) teaching us to forgive when an individual has sinned against us and asked forgive- ness. Even if one does the same thing seven times in one day, and seven times asks forgiveness, we are to give it! This is difficult! This is why the disciples said, “Lord, increase our faith.” “You remember that he did the same thing last year on two different occasions. I am willing to forgive, but I am going to watch and see if he can be true this time. I just don’t trust him.” What hope does one have with a wrong disposition? Fail to forgive, fail to be forgiven!

A Christian is peaceable. Matthew 5:9, “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” Romans 14:19, “Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.” An old joke, but too often true: “One was asked if they ever wake up grumpy And they reply, no I let him sleep as long as he desires. Is that me, or you? Grumpy, argumentative, disagreeable, frustrating, difficult. A Christian is to be like Jesus Christ. He taught us to be peacemakers. Follow after things that make for peace! One arriving late for a business meeting said, “I do not know what you are discussing, but I am against it!” Another, “There will never be a unanimous decision as long as I am a member here.” Christians often act this way! “If he is for it, I am against it!”“I just cannot get along with George!” How would Christ desire that one act?!

A Christian is grateful. Paul commanded, “. . . be ye thankful” (Col. 3:15). The grateful heart finds it easy to say “thank you.” Ten lepers were cleansed, one returned to thank Jesus. Where were the nine (Luke 17:12-19)? Ten sinners were cleansed, how many returned to thank him? What about Sunday night and Wednesday night? Oh, one does not have to attend all of those services. Grateful? Count your many blessings, see what God has done!

A Christian is tolerant. Jesus cautioned against “mote finding” (Matt. 7:1-5). All have growth difficulties. Some are looking to find fault. One can develop eyestrain at- tempting to find faults in others. The worse fault is the inability to see my own mistakes! One said, “I can see the mistakes of others better than of myself.” Another said, “I could see my own mistakes . . . if I had any!” Please read 1 John 1:8, 10; Romans 3:10, 23. Some trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others (Luke 18:9ff ). Lord, look how much wonderful work I do: I attend all the services, I give more than others, I teach a class at the building, I even brought one of my neighbors to services. The other humbly requested, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!” You remember which one God heard! How did Paul suggest handling a Jewish adherent? one without law? a weak individual? Read 1

Corinthians 9:20-22. If we show no tolerance (you complete the thought) . . .

A Christian is easily entreated. James 3:17, “But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.” Other translations: open to reason (RSV ), conciliatory (Moffit), easily persuaded (Alford), ready to be convinced (Good- speed), easily obeying (Thayer). My translation would say not stubborn or self-willed! Elders (Titus 1:7) must not be self-willed! Listen to one another! Be easy to reach when one is anxious to discuss a matter with us. Do not be a “know it all.”

A Christian is courageous. It takes much courage to be a Christian. Paul was in prison, about to die. He wrote to Timothy to encourage him. Do not permit what is happening to Paul discourage Christians. 2 Timothy 4:6-8, “For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.” The foe will ever attempt to find us on a bad day. “Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore. . .” (Eph. 6:13- 14). One cannot stand for something without standing against something else!

Galatians 2:20: “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” These

are characteristics demanded what he demands that we be!

By Mike Willis

The apostasy of the Christian Church can be studied from the standpoint of the American Christian Missionary Society and the use of mechanical instruments of music in the worship of the church. These were but symptoms of a liberal mindset that had developed in the people. This mindset is reflected in the papers that were circulated among brethren.

Among the conservatives of that day, the American Christian Review, edited by Benjamin Franklin, was the most popular. To the liberals, this paper was unacceptable. The following two accounts of the founding of the Christian Standard, a paper that still has wide circulation among the Christian Church, reflect the change in mindsets that developed among brethren. It is instructive for us to read this material so that we can identify the development of a liberal mindset among us today. The two accounts are taken from two different authors and persepectives. The first is from J.S. Lamar’s two volume work entitled Memoirs of Isaac Errett, a sympathetic account of his life’s work. Errett was the first editor of the Christian Standard. The second account of the midset that called for the creation of the Christian Standard is taken from Earl West’s Search For the Ancient Order, reflecting a more conservative assessment of the changes occurring among brethren. Later, a third description of the liberal mindset from the pen of Moses E. Lard, editor of Lard’s Quarterly, is given.

Note the description of the need for a new paper by J.S. Lamar:

The story of the founding of the Christian Standard is known to very few, and it will be read with interest. It became such a power for good; its influence was so conservative and so elevating; in matter, in tone, in spirit, it was so admirable; and continuing to this day to be recognized as one of the ablest and most influential of the religious journals of America every one will be glad to know its origin and early history. Moreover, it was through this great channel that, for the rest of his life, Mr. Errett poured forth the fullness of his vast intellectual and spiritual resources — gladdening and blessing hundreds of thousands wherever the English language is spoken.

As we have more than once pointed out, such a paper was repeatedly called for. The best, the wisest, the purest Disciples, all over the land, deeply felt the need of it. It is true, the Millennial Harbinger, now edited by Prof. Pendleton, was most ably conducted, and was always freighted with matter that commanded the thoughtful attention of the more intelligent and influential brethren. But it was a monthly, and most of its contents were of a character that would have graced a quarterly — deep, learned, weighty — and hence not well suited to the popular taste. There were several weeklies also, among them the Review and the Gospel Advocate, but these were not satisfactory. They were regarded as being narrow in their views on Scriptural truth, essentially sectarian in spirit, and, in many respects, hurtful rather than helpful to the great cause which they assumed to represent. I would say nothing here derogatory of the editors of these papers. They represented and fostered that unfortunate type of discipleship to which allusion was made in, a previous chapter — a type with which the leading minds among the brotherhood could have no sympathy. We may credit these writers with sincerity and honesty, but we can not read many of their productions without feeling that we are breathing an unwholesome religious atmosphere. They seem to infuse an unlovely and earth-born spirit, which they clothe, nevertheless, in the garb of the divine letter, and enforce with cold, legalistic and crushing power. The great truth for whose defense the disciples are set, demanded a wiser, sweeter, better advocacy — an advocacy that should exhibit the apostolic spirit as well as the apostolic letter (I:299-301).

The Christian Standard went through some difficult times in its beginning. Lamar explained these difficulties as follows:

The “Standard” had not yet, in 1867, become self- supporting. Certainly it had, for a new enterprise, a fair circulation, and its subscribers were more than pleased with it. In every sense of the word, it was an excellent periodical — strong, versatile, wide-awake, abreast with the times, its editor thoroughly well informed, not only in theology and religious literature, but in the current questions of the day. His corps of correspondents and contributors were intelligent and able, adding largely to the interest and variety of every issue. In short, it was a paper that gave pride and pleasure to its patrons. They felt that it represented all that best and worthiest in the great cause of restoration, advocating and defending the doctrine of the Disciples with dignity and courtesy, and setting forth their great plea with delightful clearness of statement and uniform strength of argument.

Still, the brotherhood as a whole had not, at this time, been educated up to this high standard. Their leading weekly, before the appearance of Mr. Errett’s paper, was the “American Christian Review,” edited by B. Franklin, of Cincinnati — which, though in some respects strong and influential, was run on a lower plane, and catered to a lower taste. Its readers, therefore, missed in the “Standard” the tone to which they had become accustomed, and that slugging sort of belligerency which had been weekly exhibited for their delectation and applause. Many, consequently, who most needed the blessed influence of Mr. Errett’s gentler and sweeter spirit, had to be trained and schooled to appreciate it. This was necessarily a slow work. It required time and patience. Men had to grow to a loftier stature; their finer sensibilities had to be cultivated, and their “senses exercised,” before they were capable of discerning the essential excellence and incomparable superiority of the “Standard.” When we add the influence of secret and unworthy efforts of rivals and others to forestall its popularity, and to prejudice the public mind against it, we are not surprised to learn that, though its patronage increased steadily, it increased slowly (I:333-334).

The liberal mindset was also reflected in what was wanted in the pulpit. Lamar continues:

. . . Among the more spiritually minded there had grown up longings for the attainment of a higher life, and ear- nest desires that the work and worship of the church might be so directed as to be more helpful towards this end. It was felt that a new era had dawned: the past was not to be reproduced; the old time sermons, so valuable and necessary in their day, had lost their original flavor, and had ceased to be interesting. All the ordering and exercises of the Lord’s house called for a change, at least in tone and spirit; and yet it was not readily apparent in what particulars this change was called for. Something was wanting — in almost every phase and aspect of the general subject, there was room for improvement; and Mr. Errett’s wise and well-considered presentation and discussion of these points were welcomed everywhere, and were productive of much good (I:356-357).

The liberal mindset that called for a gentler gospel and more loving presentation reserved its bitterest words to describe those who opposed their innovations. Here was Lamar’s assessment of the Gospel Advocate and American Christian Review’s work:

. . . To enable the reader to appreciate the situation, it should be stated here that the Disciples were a free people. They called no man master. They were bound by no dictum that could not be clearly supported by the Word of God. Even the utterances of the greatest names among them, their chosen and honored leaders, were freely brought to the standard and test of the Scriptures. These alone were authoritative, and these were final. But it is easy to see that, with such postulata, men who were imperfectly equipped, or who were ambitious for place and power, might plausibly, and sometimes unintentionally, pervert the Scriptures from their legitimate purpose, using them as a sort of compelling force, as though man were to be driven rather than drawn to Christ. This, in fact, was done, it could not fail to lead to harshness and bigotry in the advocacy of truth itself, degrading it into a mere partisan badge, and exciting intense and bitter opposition. Those who caught this dogmatic (not to say Pharisaic) spirit began to assume that they were par excellence the friends of the truth and the representatives of the cause; and if any man failed to fall into line and follow this lead, he was looked upon with suspicion, and perhaps held up before the public as being tired of “the good old way.” Now this evil and ruinous perversion of the Disciples’ true position was as yet just beginning to manifest. It was in the bud — it might possibly be nipped. While the great masses of the brotherhood felt that something was wrong, they were not able to detect it. They were faithful in heart to God and his Word, and yet somehow that Word had seemed of late to lose it loveliness to them. As it came from many pulpits, the gospel itself appeared to be clothed in the habiliments of a stern and harsh and inflexible Mosaism (I:193-194).

The Search for the Ancient Order

The second assessment of this development of the new mindset among the disciples comes from Earl I. West, author of the four volume work, The Search for the Ancient Order. Brother West is writing from the more conservative perspective of the churches of Christ, although he committed himself to institutionalism, the sponsoring church, and church fellowship halls in the late 1960s. Despite the developments of liberalism in his own fellowship, he never made a decision to disassociate himself from that fellowship. His assessment of the change in mindset that resulted in the publication of the Christian Standard is given below:

But why was the Christian Standard established? Was there a particular need for the paper? That certain brethren felt there was a need for the paper is obvious else it never should have been started. But as to what that need was is a different question. Lamar pointed out the inadequacy of the currently published religious papers. He writes:

There were several weeklies also, among them the Review and the Gospel Advocate, but these were not satisfactory. They were regarded as being narrow in their views on Scriptural truth, essentially sectarian in spirit, and, in many respects, hurtful rather than helpful to the great cause which they assumed to represent. I would say nothing here derogatory of the editors of these papers. They represented and fostered that unfortunate type of discipleship to which allusion was made in, a previous chapter — a type with which the leading minds among the, brotherhood could have no sympathy. We may credit these writers with sincerity and honesty, but we cannot read many of their productions without feeling that we are breathing an unwholesome religious atmosphere. They seem to infuse an unlovely and earth-born spirit, which they clothe, nevertheless, in the garb of the divine letter, and enforce with cold, legalistic and crushing power. The great truth for whose defense the disciples are set, demanded a wiser, sweeter, better advocacy — an advocacy that should exhibit the apostolic spirit as well as the apostolic letter.

Thus Lamar assures the reader that the Christian Standard  was needed because the Gospel Advocate and the American Christian Review were edited by men of “unlovely and earth-born spirits” who were cold, and legalistic. Now the fiction in this is easily discernible. Plans for starting the Standard were under way by 1864. The Gospel Advocate had appeared as a small, monthly paper from 1855 to 1861, having ceased because of the war. The first issue of the Advocate as a weekly did not appear until January, 1866. In April that year Isaac Errett wrote to David Lipscomb requesting back copies of the Advocate saying he had not yet seen an issue of it. Yet this paper which Errett had not seen was the occasion for starting the Standard. To state that brethren were influenced to establish the Standard because of the “earth-born spirit” of the Advocate but betrays the prejudice Lamar felt and shows the undying contempt in which he held the Advocate. This is the element to which Bittle referred when he accused Lamar of resorting to imagination — not to facts.

The American Christian Review was being printed as a weekly before this time by Ben Franklin. It was widely received: indeed, it was the most popular paper in the brotherhood, and it was this fact that worried an element of prominent men in the brotherhood. Franklin, on almost all issues before the church, stood opposed to Errett, Pendleton, and preachers of kindred thought. The editor of the Review, they considered “narrow” and “bigoted.” Knowing Franklin’s popularity with the majority of the brethren, it was their constant fear that Franklin’s “narrowness” would fasten itself upon the brotherhood, and prevent the restoration movement from following along more “liberal,” “progressive” lines. No person can go back to the study of this period and fail to see that the chief reason for the establishment of the Christian Standard was to kill the Review, and lead the brotherhood away from Franklin’s influence into these more liberal channels (The Search for the Ancient Order II:29-30).

Brother West’s assessment of why the Christian Standard was formed is succinct: “The plain truth of the matter is that Ben Franklin was the man of the people. There were a few men with both money and position who disliked Ben Franklin’s close adherence to the scriptures, and who were determined to sell the church over to their liberal ideas” (II:35). These men were determined to kill the influence of Benjamin Franklin and the American Christian Review (II:32).

The spirit of liberalism divided the church, taking with it those who thought that the church must make adjustments in its preaching and work to accommodate itself to the changing times in which those men lived. The concept of a pattern for the church was too legalistic for their palate. The sermons preached by a former generation were not suited for the new age in which those in the late 1800s were living. This liberal mindset developed into the Christian Church.

Moses E. Lard — Warning Those Who Would Hear

A third voice to give his assessment of the liberal mindset that developed into the Christian Church comes from Moses E. Lard, editor of Lard’s Quarterly. Lard lived during the time these changes were coming and wrote to warn brethren of the change in mindset in an article entitled, “The Work of the Past — The Symptoms of the Future.” He introduced his article as follows:

The prudent man, who has the care of a family, watches well the first symptoms of disease. He does not wait till his wife is helpless, and his children prostrated. He has learned that early cures are easy cures, while late ones often fail. On this experience he resolutely acts, and the world applauds his wisdom. Why should not the same judicious policy be acted upon in the weighty matters of religion? All must say it should (II:251).

After assessing the unique position of the Lord’s people in reference to several matters, Lard warned brethren of a change in attitude toward the need for vigilant examination of false doctrines. He said, “As long as error is possible, investigation should be free” (II:257). He then described some “ill-omened symptoms in our ranks.” One of the developments he decried was this: “Effeminate sentimentalism, and a diluted, licentious charity, are the carbonic acid gas of the kingdom of Christ. No soul can live in them or with them. The truth itself dies under their blight, while the church grows cadaverous and lean. Sound men in the pulpit, sound men at the press, sound men in the field, with hearty elementary teaching and preaching — these are what we now need; and what, by the Lord’s blessing, we must have” (II:258). What kind of preaching did Lard have in mind which he described as “effeminate sentimentalism”? Is he describing that kind of preaching that is full of stories and anecdotes that warm our hearts, but has scarcely any Scripture in it? Note his assessment of its effects on churches: “No soul can live in them or with them. The truth itself dies under their blight, while the church grows cadaverous and lean.”

He also lamented the following: “neither do we want men who erect their morbid sympathies into a standard by which to pronounce their brethren heretics, and the sprinkled sects around us saints” (II:258). Apparently some were so enamored by the denominations around them that they could refer to them in  glowing terms, but only had reproach for their brethren who opposed denominationalism.

Lard was concerned about a unity-in-diversity attitude that developed toward using mechanical in the churches. He wrote:

. . . Editors and preachers may write and preach against organs till the last trump shall sound, but while they countenance the churches in which they stand, visit them,  and suffer the machines to be cracked over their heads, they are but whistling idly in the air. There is but one way to cure the spirit in question — crush it. When a church learns that no preacher will set foot within its doors while it holds an organ; when it sees that its members are abandoning it; that it is fast coming to naught; and that unless it gives up its unholy innovation it is destined to ruin — then will it kick out its organ, not before (II:260).

Lard also described the “spirit of innovation” in his day.

The spirit of innovation is a peculiar spirit. While coming in it is the meekest and gentlest of spirits; only it is marvelously firm and persistent. But when going out, no term but fiendish will describe it. It comes in humming the sweetest notes of Zion; it goes out amid the ruin it works, howling like an exorcised demon. At first it is supple as a willow twig; you can bend it, mould it, shape it, to anything; only it will have its way. But when once it has fully got its way, then mark how it keeps its footing. It now calls for reason, for argument, for Scripture; but no more has it an ear for reason, argument, or Scripture than has the image of Baal. Argue with the spirit of innovation indeed! I would as soon be caught cracking syllogisms over the head of the man of sin. Never. Rebuke it in the name of the Lord; if it go not out — expel it. This only will cure it.

I know that I am accused of writing too severely on these matters. It is idle to so accuse me. I cannot change. Others may do as they see fit; but by the Lord’s help I will never tamely submit to these innovations. My whole mind, and soul, and strength shall be spent to check them. It is high time that manful and outspoken voices were lifted against them. They are the insidious leaven of Satan, and, for one, can get no countenance from me. If I go down, if my humble paper goes down, be it so. I am immovable. Defeat with the truth is better than victory with error. Give me the Saviour and a cross rather than the Enemy and a crown.

He is a poor observer of men and things who does not see slowly growing up among us a class of men who can no longer be satisfied with the ancient gospel and the ancient order of things. These men must have changes; and silently they are preparing the mind of the brother- hood to receive changes. Be not deceived, brethren, the Devil is not sleeping. If you refuse to see the danger till ruin is upon you, then it will be too late. The wise seaman catches the first whiff of the distant storm, and adjusts his ship at once. Let us profit by his example.

Let us agree to commune with the sprinkled sects around us, and soon we shall come to recognize them as Christians. Let us agree to recognize them as Christians, and immersion, with its deep significance, is buried in the grave of our folly. Then in not one whit will be better than others. Let us countenance political charlatans as preachers, and we at once become corrupt as the loath- some nest on which Beecher sets to hatch the things he calls Christians. Let us consent to introduce opinions in politics as tests of fellowship, and soon opinions in religion will become so. Then the door of heresy and schism will stand wide open, and the work of ruin will begin. Let agree to admit organs, and soon the pious, the meek, the peace-loving, will abandon us, and our churches will become gay worldly things, literal Noah’s arks, full of clean and unclean beasts (II:261-262).

Conclusion

Are there lessons we can learn from this? Surely we can see that men’s clamoring for a gentler and sweeter presentation of the gospel, a rejection of the “old worn out sermons” of the previous generation, a repudiation of men who defended the cause of Christ as legalistic and Pharisaical, and the desire for a more sophisticated presentation of the gospel in terms more appealing to the age are but symptoms of a liberal mindset. The issues may differ but the end results are the same.