Truth Magazine

By Lewis Willis

An article in the Amarillo Daily News, December 16, 1976, reports an absolutely startling statistic. A psychiatrist in the Boston area has done some research into suicides among children ages 6 to 11. During the grade-school years, a time usually considered as the carefree and happy years, there is an alarming increase in suicides. In 1958, there were only three (3) suicides in this age group. In 1973, the last year that figures were available, there were 75 listed incidents of suicide among these children.

Several reasons are given for this increase. They are “to call attention to a very desperate situation, usually to a loss of a loved one,” such as in death, separation or divorce; to “get back at someone” with whom he has had an argument; to react to emotional disorders such as alcoholism; to counter states of depression in their parents; and because of personal depression, an ailment psychiatry did not recognize in children until about 10 years ago. The profession is trying to figure out if children are predisposed to depression or if it is a behavior-trait borrowed from the conduct of their parents. While recognizing the measure of parental influence toward depression, it is not presently possible to discredit the child’s own tendency toward depression. Depression was a major factor in the suicides of 25,683 Americans in 1974. Doctors cannot simply discount depression as a cause for increasing suicides among the children of Americans.

Fundamentally, the principles of psychiatry are Bible based. The God-revealed purpose for man is sound, leading us away from such conduct as produces the tendency toward suicide, instead of leading us toward suicide. The very things that are missing from our lives that make them seem so useless and hopeless, causing men to think that suicide is the only answer, are fully supplied by God in the Divine Revelation. It might seem extremely difficult to define that for which we are searching but it is not so elusive as to defy discovery.

Who among the race is not seeking “the good life?” What other explanation can be advanced for the constant exercise of our pleasure-seeking instincts? We are looking for something that is missing in our lives. We seek peace of mind, true and lasting happiness, a better tomorrow, a comfort in trials, illness and financial reversals, and something to which we might moor ourselves against the ever-present realities of death. It would be hard to imagine the multiplied millions of dollars that are being spent to provide these things. The pseudo-security which such provides is, however, soon swept away as we are faced with other crises which necessarily will come. In alcohol, drugs, recreation, work, houses, cars, clothes and other materialistic pursuits, we search for that which will serve as an anchor for the soul against the tribulations of a turbulent life. Yet, in frustration, we discover that we have not found the answer. Some, supposing the answer cannot be found, turn to suicide. And, now we are told, so are their 6 and 7 year old children!

The peace we seek for ourselves can be realized if we are at peace with God (Rom. 5:1). True and lasting happiness can be ours if we are in Christ Jesus, producing the fruits of the Spirit (Phil. 4:4; Gal. 5:22). The comfort that is so desperately needed with which we might face the trials of life is to be found in God (2 Cor. 1:3-4; Rom. 8:28). Tomorrow has to be better if we clothe ourselves in the spiritual blessings that Heaven bestows (Eph. 1:3). And, death can be faced if we have made ready for eternity (Phil 1:21-24; 2 Tim. 4:6-8). These things will not be found in carnal attachments. They are spiritual; they satisfy the deepseated longings of the soul and they are abundantly supplied by God, and only by Him. We must learn to seek them in the proper place to avail ourselves of stabilizing perspective.

The urgency of the search is compounded when we realize that not only do we desire and have need of these avenues of contentment, but our children are recognized to need them also. And, they are looking for this security and expecting it to come from Mom and Dad. We parents had better find it and share it with our children. Moments of harried clamor had better give way to moments of prayer and meditation. Else, our children will turn to the wrong sources to satisfy the desires of their souls. They need the wisdom and direction which parents can impart to them. In fact, we parents are under Divine Orders to give this direction to our children. “And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). The judgment will reveal how well we have kept these orders. Or, to our dismay, we might find out while still walking this vale of tears. It does not always happen “to someone else.”

Truth Magazine XXI: 49, pp. 778-779
December 15, 1977

By Daniel H. King

When Peter and John stood before the Sanhedrin of the Jews in Acts the fourth chapter, the question directed to them by the esteemed court of seventy-one was the following: “By what power, or what name have ye done this?” Their question referred to the incident which had taken place at the Beautiful gate of the temple only the day before. A blind man had asked alms of them as they were about to go into the sacred precincts and was healed “in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.” Peter and John had then taken the opportunity offered by the assembled multitude to instruct them in the gospel of Christ. The whole city must have been astir at the occurrence of so notable a miracle at so central a place. And, the significance of the occasion was such that the matter was brought before the high court of the Jewish nation to inquire as to the authority behind this thing which had aroused the masses. But you will notice from the context that the thing under question is not the miraculous healing which had been affected through them, although Peter and John wished to direct their attention to it and apparently succeeded in the effort. Verse two centers upon the real difficulty so far as the complainants are concerned: “the Sadducees came upon them, being sore troubled because they taught the people, and proclaimed in Jesus, the resurrection from the dead.” One versed in the doctrine of the Sadducees knows full well why these sectaries would have been up-at-arms about such teaching being done in the temple, e.g. Solomon’s portico (3:11). They traced their authority back to and were named after Zadok the priest who had served under David and Solomon (2 Sam. 20:25; 1 Kgs. 4:4). The temple was their realm. In addition, they were convinced that the Old Testament denied a future resurrection of the body, holding that the soul perishes with the body (cf. Acts 23:8). Yet Peter and John had. invaded their realm teaching the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead — diametrically opposing one of the basic tenets of their religious party. We should not wonder that they were “sore troubled.”

However, when the case was brought before the council, the question which they put to the defendants could not have been directed at the truth or falsity of the doctrine under consideration, i.e. the resurrection of the dead. The court was evenly divided between those who held to the Pharisaic belief in it and the Sadducean denial of it. Paul later capitalized on this inherent weakness of the assembly in order to force the Pharisees to take this side in the litigation following his arrest in the same city (Acts 23:1-10). Had this been the question at issue the same thing would have resulted as did in Paul’s case. Neither could it be a question as to the genuineness or veracity of the miracle. It was too obvious to allow room for debate, as they were willing to admit in private session: “For that indeed a notable miracle hath (been wrought through them, is manifest to all that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it” (4:16). Instead, the issue before the court had to be one touching the authority behind their actions of the previous day. Therefore, the question was asked, “By what power, or in what name, have ye done this?”

This question seems fairly simple. And it is. But what lies immediately behind the query and was in the mind of the questioners is the common practice among the Jews of basing one’s own views and opinions, as well as one’s consequent actions, upon the authoritative statements of famous teachers or Rabbis. Men who were trained at the feet of noted biblical exegetes came to be possessed of an authority which issued from their many years of studious reflection upon and explanation of the Bible. However, it went beyond all practical and logical boundaries. For in the course of time their words had become authoritative to the point that they were viewed as a second law in addition to the written commandments. In effect there co-existed in the minds of many Jews a written law (the law given by Moses) and an oral law (the law which was passed on from generation to generation via the renowned expositors of the biblical text). In cases where questions arose as to the exact meaning of a passage, their opinions were collated and passed on. In other instances, though, the question of whither a scripture meant what it said was raised and answered in the negative by some Rabbis. Thus, their opinions were raised in many cases to a level above the law of God. Jesus therefore condemned them for “making void the word of God because of . . . tradition” (Matt. 15:6).

To illustrate their practice let me quote from one of their collections of Rabbinic sayings called Pirqe Aboth or “Sayings of the Jewish Fathers.” This is a Mishnah tractate which has been used in the synagogues at certain seasons of the year as liturgical material, making even more obvious its place beside Scripture in the hearts and minds of the people. The sayings found in the book claim to date from the fourth century B.C. to the third century A.D. and most people who are “in the know” on such things tell us that there is no reason to doubt that it is genuine. If this is so, then we have in this collection many sayings that would have been circulating and would have been held to be “authoritative” by the very men who sat in judgment upon Peter and John. With this in mind, let us notice one such statement:

“Rebhan Jochanan ben Zakai received from Hiltel and from Shammai. He used to say, ‘If you have practiced the Law much, then do not claim merit for yourself, for thereunto were you created'” (2:9).

Comparable examples could be multiplied, but our point is amply illustrated in this single reference. You will note that in the quotation there is no reference of scripture cited or quoted, although scripture is alluded to. Indeed, this was as it was intended to be. That which is contained in the short saying is supposed to stand on the authority of the one who uttered it and the fact that he had “received from Hillel and Shammai,” two men of great renown in the realm of Jewish tradition. Neither of these men was inspired, but their sayings were accorded a weightiness that should only have been affixed to Biblical sayings. Moreover, they were granted this authority by the people who, ignoring their humanness and the possibility of error on their part, raised them to a level a notch above that of the common man. This is not to say that their knowledgeability was not a cut above the ordinary, there is no doubt whatever that it was. These men could have put any of us to shame by their years of incessant and dedicated memorization of Scripture. In the case of Jochanan ben Zakai, for example, his learning is described in the Mishnah tractate Baba Bathra 134a with the following laudatory remark: “at his death splendid learning ceased.” Even granting that his knowledge was immense, still it was wrong for the people to exalt him and those like him as they did. He was merely a man among men. He deserved to be heard as long as he spoke the words of God after Him. But when he or any other man presumed to speak for God when the Almighty had not imbued him with his Spirit, then he became guilty of the “great transgression,” that of presumptuousness (Ps. 19:13).

A further examination of the Rabbinic sources shows that students of the most able Jewish teachers later came to speak “in the name” of their masters. An instance appears in “The Sayings of the Fathers”:

“Rabbi Dosithaf, son of Rabbi Jannai, said in the name Rabbi Meir, ‘When a scholar of the wise sits and studies, and has forgotten a word of his Mishnah (oral tradition, they account it unto him as if he were guilty of death, for it is said, Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the words which thine eyes have seen’ (Deut. 4:9)” (3:12).

The meaning of this is explained later in the same book when Meir points out:

“The Law is acquired by forty-eight things . . . by Scripture, by Mishnah (oral tradition) . . . (he that) settles his heart to his study; asks and answers, hears and adds thereto; he that learns in order to teach, and that learns in order to practice; that makes his master wiser, and that considers what he has heard, and that tells a thing in the name of him that said it. Yes, you have learned that whoever tells a thing in the name of him that said it, brings redemption to the world, for it is said, ‘And Esther told it to the king in the name of Mordecai’ (Esther 2:22)” (6:6).

In the opinion of this esteemed Jewish teacher the Bible is only one thing in a list of forty-eight which will gain one an understanding in God’s will and satisfy his demands for obedience. To him the Rabbinic decisions and sayings rest on a par with Scripture. Further, repetition of the sayings of a Rabbi “in the name of him that said it, brings redemption into the world.” Can you imagine a system which could become so introverted as to express the idea of redemption in those terms? Probably you can, because the Roman Catholic church, with its “canon law” and “ex cathedra” decrees, has produced the same results. Likewise the other human ‘denominations with all of their humanly devised systems and humanly contrived creeds belong in the same category. And their attempts at scriptural undergirding for their doctrines and practices are no more worthy of comment than the citation of Esther 2:2 above, an obvious case of “eisegesis” or “reading into” the Bible. As in the ancient Jewish community, they have the Bible in their hands and in their heads-but not in their hearts.

But now, back to Acts four (I have not forgotten after all). When Peter and John were asked the question, “By what power, or in what name, have ye done this?”, all of the above freight was loaded into the question. The Jewish leaders who were interrogating them had been steeped in this kind of thinking since their youth. In whose name had they taught this doctrine in the temple? Who was their teacher and what gave him the right to be their teacher? Did he possess the right credentials? Was he a man grounded in the oral as well as the written tradition of the Jews? If so, then what was his name? Surely they had heard it often before? Yes, they had heard it before, but hoped not to hear it again; they had put him to death to silence his caustic condemnations of their hypocrisy and presumption. Unabashedly the Holy Spirit answered the inquiry through Peter: “Ye rulers of the people, and elders, if we this day are examined concerning a good deed done to an impotent man, by what means (or “in whom”) this man is made whole; be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ (Messiah) of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even in him doth this man stand here before you whole. He is the stone which was set at nought of you the builders, which was made the head of the corner. And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved” (vss. 8-12).

The Holy Spirit made it clear that their system left no room for their Messiah and his teachings, and contrariwise, the Messiah and his teachings left no room for their system. Fancy that! All of their endless hours of contemplation and memorization of Rabbinic maxims and adages had been wasted. Perfect comprehension and even perfect retention of their masters’ words would not save them. The Messiah’s name was the only name that counted. Redemption was not to be found “in the name” of any or all of their Rabbis. It was only to be had in him and in his name.

These two were accounted “ignorant and unlearned” by the educated sophisticates who judged them, but they could not deny the influence of the Master Teacher, for “they had been with Jesus.” The very idea that the Messiah had walked among them and they had not recognized him and bestowed upon him the honor that was his due! Such babbling was obviously the product of small and untrained minds! The thing to do was to threaten them “that they speak henceforth to no man in this name.” This they did but to no avail. In chapter five they were faced with the same problem. Having brought the apostles before the council a second time, they stated flatly: “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name: and behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your teaching” (vs. 28). And, after this second hearing they beat them and again “charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus” and let them go (vs. 40). It was “for the Name” that the apostles had suffered this dishonor (vs. 41); Luke is plain in bringing out this important point. The Jewish leaders would not recognize the name of Jesus or any authority that the apostles might claim for it.

There are two significant lessons that I think we would do well to glean from the preceeding observations. First, if we are going to please God today, then we will have to be content to do as Peter and John and the rest of the apostles did when they stood before the highest court in their land. We must speak “in the name” of the Master Teacher. Only His name will bring salvation. Moreover, His name carries with it all of the authority that we need in religion. As Paul later put it: “Whatsoever ye do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him” (Col. 3:17). But, to do all in His name we must abide in what he said, personally and through his apostles and prophets and their writings (Jn. 14:26; 16:13; 1 Tim. 6:3). That is, we cannot go beyond the Scriptures (1 Cor. 4:6 ASV). To add to or diminish from his “doctrine” or “teaching” would be tantamount to what the Rabbis did (2 Jn. 9).

A second comment derives directly from the foregoing: We should learn from the Jews the dangers inherent in tradition. Of course, tradition in itself is neither inherently good or bad. Yet a thing that is traditionally said or done can potentially be bad. In fact, it can become very bad if it is only said or done because of tradition that is begun by man and sustained by manmade law. This is consistently condemned in the Bible (Matt. 15:9; Col. 2:8; Titus 1:14). Additionally, herein lies a persistent problem about which we must be constantly warned. Often we are heard quoting some well-known and highly respected brother on a particular question as though the very fact that he said a thing gave it weight and authority. Let us be aware that if we do this we have effectually said it in His name. And when we have done so we are no less guilty than the Rabbis were. If a thing is worth the saying because it is true, then say it without prefacing, prefixing or footnoting it! (This context along with my own practice should make it obvious that I am not advocating plagiarism.) At the same time however, we should not forget that if what we do and say is after apostolic tradition and Scripture can be produced to sustain it, then we have not the right to budge a single millimeter from that traditional but God-honouring path. The Master Teacher through his apostles let it be known that such tradition is inherently good and will still be good if a thousand generations observe it and a thousand men repeat it (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6, 7: 1 Cor. 11:2). The name and hence, the authority of Christ is at the heart of that tradition. Therein lies the difference. But what a difference!

Truth Magazine XXI :49, pp. 775-778
December 15, 1977

By Morris W. R. Bailey

The Church And The Individual

In my previous article under the above heading, it was pointed out that the practice of church support of colleges and benevolent institutions operated by brethren has been based on the assumption that what the individual is obligated to do in the way of good works, the church is also obligated to do. In this article I want to give special attention to a statement made by a strong proponent of the above theory and practice. In a tract entitled, Questions And Issues Of The Day In The Light Of The Scriptures, Brother Batsell Barnet Baxter of David Lipscomb College said regarding any distinction between church action and individual action:

“No such distinction is taught in the scriptures. If it is a good work which the Lord wants done, the responsibility falls equally upon individuals and upon the church, for individuals are the church.”

Since Brother Baxter claims scriptural support for what he teaches and practices regarding the church and the individual we therefore raise the question, “What do the scriptures teach with regard to the church and the individual?” The attention of the reader is directed to the following facts with their supporting scriptures:

Distinction As To Identity

While it is true that the church is composed of individual Christians, it is also apparent that the scriptures recognize a distinction as to the identity of each. This is obvious from the following scriptures.

1. In Romans 12:4,5 Paul likened the church unto our physical body. “For even as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and severally members one of another.” The import of Paul’s language is that though all the members (individual Christians) combined form the one body in Christ, yet these members are distinct from one another in that all have not the same office.

2. That Paul recognized a distinction between one member (the individual) and the body of Christ (the church) is obvious from 1 Cor. 12:14. “For the body is not one member, but many.” To say, therefore, that what the individual can do, the church can do, or that when the individual acts it is the church acting is tantamount to saying that the church is one member and one member is the church, which Paul declared is not so.

3. A distinction between the identity of the church and the individual is also apparent from the language of Jesus in Rev. 2:13. Addressing the church at Pergamum he paid a tribute to “Antipas my witness, my faithful one, who was killed among you where Satan dwelleth.” Obviously Antipas (an individual) had died for the faith. But who would said that the church had died?

Distinction Between Church Action And Individual Action

Because the scriptures recognize a distinction between the identity of the church and of the individual, they also recognize a distinction between what constitutes church action and that which is individual action. Consider the following examples.

1. The reader is requested to turn to and read carefully Matt. 18:15-17. There Jesus was giving the formula or solution for the settlement of differences between brethren. In this scripture Jesus prescribed three steps to be taken.

(a) The wronged brother is to go to the brother is error and tell him his fault (individual action).

(b) If that fails, take two or three brethren and go to him again (group action).

(c) If that fails, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to hear the church, let him be disfellowshipped (church action).

Is it not a good work to restore an erring brother? But if it is true, as affirmed by some brethren, that what the individual does the church does, then in that case the church was acting from the very beginning when the individual first went to his erring brother. Therefore, the church knew about it all the time. Thus the words of Jesus, “tell it to the church,” would be pointless.

2. In the fifth chapter of First Corinthians, Paul gave instructions to the church at Corinth as to the action to be taken regarding a member who was guilty of fornication. Paul said: “In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” The expression, “deliver such a one unto Satan,” obviously meant withdrawal of fellowship. Thus Paul commanded church action to be taken against the man guilty of fornication (individual action).

Distinction As To Financial Resources

The scriptures also make a distinction between the financial resources of the church and those of the individual, both as to how they are acquired and as to how they are used. The individual can acquire his resources in the form of wages paid to him for work (Eph. 4:13). Or, he may operate a business for profit (James 4:13). The church, however, is limited to but one way in which to acquire its resources, and that is through the contributions of its members on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:1,2).

There has been some confusion in the minds of some brethren regarding the status of an individual Christian’s own funds and those that have been contributed on the first day of the week and which constitute what is commonly called “the church treasury.” This confusion is evident from a question that has been asked. “Do dollars become tainted with some kind of taboo as soon as they fall into the church treasury?”

That the scriptures recognize a difference between the resources of the individual and those that have been contributed into the church treasury is obvious from the words of Peter in the fifth chapter of Acts. Ananias and his wife Sapphira, following the example of others, had sold some land. But they had conspired to make it appear that they were giving the entire selling price of the land, while keeping back a part of it. In exposing their hypocrisy Peter asked, “While it remained, did it not remain thine own. And after it was sold, was it not in thy power?” The point is obviously this: they owned the land. They were not obligated to sell it. Having sold the land, the money realized from the sale was theirs to give or not to give. They were not required to give all of it, nor any of it, for that matter. Their sin was in the conspiracy to make it appear that they were giving the entire selling price of the land when they were, in fact, giving only a part of it.

So Peter’s words teach very forcefully and conclusively that there is a difference between the individual’s own resources and the money that has been dropped into the collection basket. The individual is at liberty to spend his or her money for, or contribute to, anything that is morally right. But once money has been dropped into the collection basket on the first day of the week, it becomes the Lord’s money and can be used only for what is scripturally authorized.

It may be objected at this point that all money is the Lord’s money, whether in the church treasury or in the individual’s bank account. In a sense, yes. But is not the money in the church treasury the Lord’s money in a sense different from that of the money of the individual? Consider the following parallel: Through the prophet Ezekiel, God said, “All souls are mine” (Ezekiel 18:4). But while all people belong to God, there is a special sense in which Christians belong to God which is not true of people of the world. Christians are “sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:26). In the same way, there is a sense in which all money, whether it be that of saint or sinner, is the Lord’s money, for “The earth is Jehovah’s and the fullness thereof” (Psalm 24:1). But when the Christian’s money is dropped into the collection basket, he relinquishes control over it, and it becomes the Lord’s money in a special sense, to be spent only as the Lord has authorized.

Distinction As To Individual And Church Obligation

Here, the reader’s attention is directed to the fifth chapter of First Timothy. Paul was giving instruction regarding the care of widows. Let us notice the following points: (1) In verse three Paul said, “Honor widows that are widows indeed.” (2) In verse five, however, Paul said, “But if any widow hath children or grandchildren, let them learn first to show piety towards their own family, and to requite their parents: for this is acceptable in the sight of God.” Thus Paul taught that it is the individual that has the responsibility of caring for a widowed mother or grandmother. In further elaboration of that point Paul said, “But if any provideth not for his own, and especially his own household, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

(3) This brings us to verse sixteen, where Paul said, “If any woman that believeth hath widows, let her relieve them, and let not the church be burdened; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.” In the light of this passage, who can deny that the scriptures make a distinction between the responsibility of the individual and that of the church? Did not Paul specifically charge the individual with a responsibility with which the church was not to be burdened? But if it is true, as we have been told, that what the individual does the church does, then the church was being burdened all along in the action of the individual in caring for a widowed mother, and thus Paul’s words, “Let not the church be burdened” are meaningless.

So to handle aright the word of truth, we must recognize the distinction that the scriptures make between the church and the individual, in identity, in financial resources, in action and in obligation. To burden the church with that which is the responsibility of the individual is a corruption of its mission.

Truth Magazine XXI: 49, pp. 774-775
December 15, 1977

By Mike Willis

Last week, a personal friend of mine sent me a complimentary copy of A Journey Toward Jesus. This book is a 48-page, paperback co-authored by Edward Fudge and Bruce Edwards. It is subtitled “16 Letters on Salvation by Grace through Faith, and its implications for the People of God.” The sixteen letters are the personal correspondence of Bruce and Edward which spans the period from November 9, 1973 to April 23, 1975. My personal impression of the book is that the correspondence is conclusive proof that Bruce Edwards has accepted the positions advocated by Edward Fudge and others associated with the new unity faction.

In the beginning of the correspondence, Bruce comes across as Edward’s antagonist. In the close of the correspondence, Bruce is writing to Edward for advice on how to conduct himself now that he has accepted the new doctrines. The correspondence will demonstrate that Bruce Edwards has accepted the position that institutionalism, premillennialism, instrumental music, etc. should not be grounds for the breaking of fellowship.

It is with no small amount of sadness that I write this rather detailed review of A Journey Toward Jesus. Bruce is a former staff writer for Truth Magazine. On November 7, 1974, Cecil Willis announced the addition of Bruce to the staff of Truth Magazine and commended him very highly. I met Bruce shortly after that and was very impressed with him. Shortly thereafter, I begin to receive his bulletin which was published by the church in St. James, Missouri and named The Helper. Before too long, I begin to read articles in The Helper which were upsetting to me, so I started saving those copies. I soon began to correspond with Bruce regarding some of the things which he was writing in his bulletin, expressing disagreement with them. His letters reassured me that he had not gone soft, so I threw away my stack of his bulletins fully accepting his word. But, the tone of his writings did not change; they were very definitely leaning in the wrong direction so I began to collect the bulletins again and to correspond with Bruce further.

Those who were acquainted with the nature of the present apostasy were able to see that Bruce was gradually adopting all of the cliches and arguments which those who believe in unity-in-diversity are using. We could see the direction which Bruce was taking and were very concerned about him. The digression of Bruce is not yet complete but it has gone far enough now that he needs to be exposed as a false teacher, a propagator of the unity-in-diversity concept. To show that this is happening, I want to review the book which Bruce and Edward have jointly authored.

In the first letter which Bruce wrote, he took issue with some of the concepts taught by Edward. Edward replied with a lengthy letter in which he taught his doctrine of salvation through the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account. I have not read anything from Edward’s pen which states his position on the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ as clearly as does this letter. In Bruce’s reply, he did not oppose Edward’s comments on imputation; indeed, he was silent on the subject. After reading the book, I telephoned Bruce to ask him, among other things, if he accepted the doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account. In essence, he replied, ‘No, but I come out about the same place.” (These are his words as nearly as I can reproduce them from memory.)

After receiving Edward’s reply to his second letter, Bruce wrote,

In a way I’m feeling a sense of exhilaration, a sense that I’m on the verge of putting some things in perspective that were formerly out of line, and It is very exciting and gratifying) To be sure, it is an awesome task to re-evaluate long held conceptions and beliefs, and it Is surely a slow process, but I hope that with God’s guidance, I can truly understand His will (p. 21 ).

Although Bruce was writing to me that he had not changed his convictions, he was writing to Edward that he was on the verge of giving up some long-held convictions. I cannot help wondering how a twenty-one year old boy could write about “long-held” convictions!

At other places in the correspondence, Bruce comes, across as an antagonist of Edward again. However, he resembles the fly that has been caught in the spider’s web which makes a few attempts to escape before he is killed by the spider’s poison. From that point on in the correspondence, Bruce begins to accept more and more of Edward’s points of view. It seemed significant to me that during the same period in which I was becoming upset by Bruce’s bulletin that Edward wrote him, “You have had some good material in your bulletin on the undenominational nature of the church. That is an important thing to remember” (p. 27).

In the eleventh letter, Edward wrote these things to Bruce:

It seems to me that if the Lord would forgive people who sinned with knowledge, He would ail the more forgive those who through no fault of their own were ignorant when they sinned. Doesn’t that sound reasonable to you? You are right, of course, that Scripture presents no “rosy picture” for those who sin ignorantly. We cannot tell folks: “Just go on ignorant and you’re sure to be forgiven that way)” Anybody who did that would either be stupid to the point of being a fool or else would be the worst sort of antinomian and perverter of God’s grace. But there is a great deal of difference between acknowledging that, on the one hand, and going around saying, as so many seem to do (there is no point in calling names here, the principle Is what matters), “you cannot be saved because you do not understand ‘x’ issue the same way I do.” Especially when both are Christians, both are honestly seeking to know the will of God, and both concede that “x” issue is not something God has specifically spelled out in Scripture or attached importance to in a specific manner at all, but rather Is something men of the 19th or 20th centuries have seen to be an important bane, growing out of the cultural, economic and corporate concepts of the world around them. . . .

Why do men who agree on music, institutionalism, etc., nevertheless still disagree among themselves on women in the church, women’s apparel, movies, smoking, war, women’s covering, Sunday night communion, a multitude of “moral” issues) mixed swimming, dancing, etc.), and many other things actually involving practice, not to mention all the differences on what the Bible means in certain passages and on particular subjects (the Holy Spirit’s Indwelling, the meaning of Eph. 4:12fi, aspects of prophecy, etc., etc., etc.) I do not believe that we can say they are therefore not true believers, necessarily, though that is a possibility with any of them. If we see the point there, why do we not see it among those who have become children of God, who differ on I mental music, institutionalism, etc.? Someone may say, “But there affect the work and worship of the church” we have already talked about that. Some may say, “But these affect others necessarily, while the things you mention do not affect anyone except the individual involved.” That is true, but so what, so far as this point is concerned? It is true that they can more easily worship under the same roof and disagree on individual matters than if they disagreed on what they have do together, but the principle of understanding God’s will and being men of faith while they sometimes differ is the same . . . .

On the preacher from the Christian church in your town:

I believe your relationship with him would have to depend on the particular situation. Until recently there was no such thing as a Christian Church denomination, though it was developing for a long time, but now there officially is, and those in it use the name “Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).” These are usually, though not always quite liberal on many points, is involved in the ecumenical movement, and all that. Many of them accept people for membership who have not been immersed, much less with an understanding of Acts 2:38.

On the other band, many who call themselves a “Christian church” are as much against denominationalism and those things as we are, and have no connections whatever with the Disciples. They usually refer to themselves as “the independent brotherhood of churches of Christ and Christian churches.” And even there the spectrum is about as broad as among non- instrumental churches of Christ. So it really depends on the situation.

Of course you can never either engage in or encourage anything you do not believe to be right. At the same time, if the fellow turns out to be a New Testament Christian, you at least have that in common, and a starting place from which to work toward further common biblical understanding. I would not say that such a man is a part of a denominational body, unless he is in fact a part of the existing denomination with headquarters in St. Louis. Because a man attends a congregation which uses the instrument does not make him part of a denomination–unless we conceive of our particular part of the non-instrumental wing of the restoration movement as precisely equivalent with the Body of Christ universal, and lump everybody else under the category of “denominational.” That is something neither the Bible nor the restoration pioneers would have allowed, and, although many do it today, I am not one of them.

Upon receiving the lengthy letter from which I have taken these few quotations, Bruce wrote back, “Let me say that this letter has so far been the clearest and easiest one for me to understand and study with.”

In the fifteenth letter, Bruce wrote,

As I told you the morning we ate breakfast together, I think I will soon be facing some trying situations–situations which test the foundation of my commitment to Jesus and Him alone. I just hope I have the courage not to back down — but I know that better men than I am have done just that in the face of partisan pressure. I would appreciate your help in encouraging me, whenever you see me “slipping” back into a “sectarian” mold or frame of reference.

It seems to me that this statement shows conclusively that Bruce recognizes that he has left us and is taking a new stand. He is worried about whether he will have the courage to take that stand without turning back and asks Edward’s encouragement during the trying times which lie ahead for him. By this time in the correspondence, Bruce has adopted the basic tenets of the unity-in-diversity faction.

Intellectual Honesty?

There is yet another exchange between Bruce and Edward which causes me great consternation. Bruce wrote to Edward as follows:

How do you present your case for non-sectarian Christianity? How do you make your points such that no one causes a stir — begins a controversy — over your teaching? These are questions I am grappling with now; at present it seems I can effectively lay a groundwork, building slowly, with the pure gospel, and yet I have some friends who think I am not going fast enough.

Yet, should I “spell it out” in “so many words” — what I believe the implications of my lessons are? That is, is it wiser to do it the way I have been, or is that a sign of weakness or cowardice? My friends are convinced that I need to press it more — immediately, and that is what they propose to do whenever possibilities arise. Is it dishonest or unethical to conceal or keep to oneself his beliefs in given situations? Can I have your thoughts on the matter? Am I acting from fear, or wisdom? (p. 44).

In the last letter of their published correspondence, Edward Fudge replied as follows:

When you deal with a passage or topic, therefore, which touches on the things you feel the brethren need to learn, work it in or bring it out, without making a big to-do over it, simply sowing seed for perceptive minds to think about at their own speed. This is far more preferable than rushing into something and “snowing” people before they are ready for it. The thing is, they will only accept what they are ready for and understand anyway, so why upset them unnecessarily by rushing things. And this is not dishonest or hypocritical; it is simply using good teaching methods such as the Lord Himself did. If your motives in this were to direct attention to some human party, or to advance your own personal interests, it would be sinful. But since your only desire is to lead them to the Lord and to help them grow In His Word and be simple Christians, it is an honorable goal and being “wise as serpents and harmless as doves” to do it. Do not ever be deceitful or misleading; always be truthful; and if somebody puts you on the spot, answer truthfully with humility and grace. But do not think you have to get up and say all you know in one sermon. Jesus never did that, and the apostles did not, either.

As to whether you are being dishonest or a coward or unethical to “conceal” your convictions, that depends on what you mean by “conceal.” If you lie about matters, or pretend and intend to give someone an impression contrary to the truth, then of course that is wrong. If, on the other hand, you mean simply that you do not say everything you feel or think, publicly and at once, your present course is not only justifiable, but the only mature and sensible way to behave.

Don’t think you have to say everything you think. You don’t have to go around telling folks, “Say, I have 38 unusual and novel ideas which I want to lay on you right now!!” To do that would be foolish and childish, and could do no possible good. If you hold ideas simply to be novel and unusual, then it might be good to let people know about it. But If you hold ideas simply because you want to know and please the Lord, it is not necessary to tell everybody all you think; simply work 100 per cent toward causing them also to know and please the Lord ….

Be cautious about revealing your thoughts to other preachers. I wish now that I had not been so open with one or two myself. There is no need to stir up opposition from any who may later prove to be close minded and simply eager to bait you, then go off and spread untrue tales and misrepresentations. Thanks to God there are many, many preaching brethren who are honest and are not the way I mention, but you will gradually learn to discern the difference between the two spirits.

I have quoted extensively from this exchange in letters to make the observation that you will have to be straightforward and to the point to get a precise answer from Bruce regarding where he is standing. Bruce, apparently, has accepted the same spirit as those others who have gone out from us. They keep telling us that they are “sound” but give the word “sound” a different definition than I have when I ask the question, “Are you sound?”

Conclusion

Frankly, I have done all that I know that I can do to prevent Bruce from accepting the position which he has taken. Nevertheless, he has knowingly accepted the conclusions of Edward Fudge and those associated with him. Presently, he poses a threat to the faith of others whom I hold dear. My concern has turned now from Bruce to those who might be influenced by him. They need to be warned and forearmed.

My friend, Lloyd Barker, said that he was not going to waste his time with an “educated liberal.” He meant by that a liberal who is acquainted with the issues and has taken his stand with the liberals. Such a person is not ignorant of the issues; instead, he has taken a studied position. Bruce is exactly such a person. He was reared in one of the strongest churches in Akron, Ohio. He has been taught the truth by some of the best men among us. After that, he enjoyed the privilege of sitting at the feet of the qualified instructors at Florida College. Yet, he has renounced the things which he has been taught and taken his stand with Edward Fudge and his colleagues. Let him, therefore, take the consequences of having taken his position.

Truth Magazine XXI: 49, pp. 771-773
December 15, 1977