Truth Magazine

By Lewis Willis

(Author’s Note: When this series was started, I lived in Amarillo, Texas. I have moved to Irving, Texas, where 1 am now working with the North Irving Church. This note is included because I am “changing my source material” for the most part. Some articles will still appear from newspaper articles I have clipped from the Amarillo Daily News. And, I also have a friend up there who is sending me articles. However, most material referred to in the future will be from the Dallas Morning News. As various articles have appeared, I have received related news items from brethren across the country. I appreciate this very much and some of this material adds force to what I already have. A Request: If you send a clipping to me, please include the name of the paper from whence it came and the date when it appeared. Thanks for the kind things you have had to say about this series.)

A Skunk in the Collection Plate

To most he is known as “Reverend.” To others, he is affectionately called “Doctor.” He, in the past, has been friend, advisor and confidant to Presidents. He is known and read by people from all parts of the earth. Multitudes gather to hear him speak no matter where he might be. However, to the Better Business Bureau BBB), he is an enigma. They know precious little about him. And, if he has his way, they will not learn anything more about him. I speak not of the Chairman of the Board of Exxon Corporation or Ace Vacuum Cleaner Company. In the very nature of the case these financial enterprises must be responsive to the BBB. But, this world-renowned personality has informed the BBB that his “Board refuses to cooperate.” He is none other than the great (?) Billy Graham!

You see, the good “Reverend” has concealed a fund which he has concealed from public view in the best way he could. Yes, he has mentioned it on an occasion or two and he has told the IRS about it. But, he has failed to supply pertinent information in which contributors to his evangelistic organization are interested. So, requests have been made of the BBB for more information-just as one is able to do with a vacuum cleaner company. The Dallas Morning News reported on September 28, 1977 that the BBB had made 20 specific requests for information (two of them by registered mail), all of which have been ignored. The “justification” for his refusal to respond is that his is a non-profit, religious organization which is not responsible to a non-legal entity such as the BBB. Say there, “Rev.,” it looks like you might be hiding something. And, such he is!

A front-page article in the Dallas Morning News on June 27, 1977, written by reporter Helen Parmley, reports that this little fund only amounts to $23 million dollars! I think if I had duped a gullible public into giving me $23 million dollars I would probably prefer to keep quiet about it too. If he put this money in multi-year certificates, he would only make a mere $1.6 million per year interest, or approximately that amount. A reporter for a Minneapolis paper asked why he had not responded to the inquiries from the Council of BBB’s. His answer was he did not want to “waste the donor’s” money by replying. So, he doles out a few large sums from the fund occasionally, tells the IRS about it, and expects the American people to swallow this corrupt mess. I would suspect that he has a few more problems in front of him because of this $23 million he has accumulated from his well-known ministry.

Many will think that he pays for his campaign efforts from this fund. What they do not know about his campaigns would shock them. When he goes into an area, his organization goes before him and persuades churches in those areas to pay the bill. I have never been to one of his rallies and could not say if contributions were taken at them. So, I called a Baptist preacher located just up the street from me. He confirmed that they do take up collections at these rallies. These are used to pay the costs of the campaign, the funds are audited with reports being sent to contributing churches, and any excess “may be given to the Billy Graham Evangelistic Committee,” according to this local Baptist preacher. This is intriguing. I have never seen a collection being taken during any of these televised campaigns. But, I would like to see the size of the barrels used in gathering in this money from the thousands of emotionally-charged people who are present. Or, maybe the size of the trucks used to take it to the bank!

The Baptist preacher with whom I spoke knows “Billy” personally. He explained that Billy is a philanthropist, divesting himself of material things by giving them as gifts to his friends. Well, so did Elvis and he still had a fortune at his death. Somehow I suspect that Billy will end up that way too. If I had $23 million stashed away somewhere, I think I could give a friend an occasional car or set of golf clubs as Billy did, and for which he was praised by his local preaching buddy!

One has to suspect that Mr. Graham has some legal problems facing him. But, he is not alone in this. His fellow, nationally-known evangelist, Oral Roberts, has some legal problems of his own now. Perhaps Roberts and Graham will quietly establish a multi-million dollar, publicly funded foundation to handle the costs of their legal difficulties. Get this if you can fathom it! During the week of September 25, 1977, a Metroplex TV station reported that a suit had been filed against Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, Oklahoma, charging discrimination against the handicapped in their admissions policy. For Roberts, this must be a very embarrassing thing. He is the fellow who has made a fortune by traversing this nation claiming to heal the sick and handicapped. He has milked millions from poor people who are racked with disease. His coffers were so enriched that he could build that great university. Forgive me for asking but, why did he not just heal

those handicapped students and let them go to school, instead of rejecting them?? He did not and could not, and today, he will have to go to court to answer the discrimination suit.

It just might be that the American people will one day see through the guise of these fellows and recognize them for what they really are. They are not bountiful reapers as a result of having sown bountifully (2 Cor. 9:6). Instead, “they with feigned words make merchandise” of their hearers (2 Pet. 2:3). “For filthy lucre’s sake” (Tit. 1:11), they have deceived many unwitting souls. Maybe they shall now be exposed as such.

The next time someone starts extolling the greatness of Billy Graham or Oral Roberts, just ask them about a $23 million dollar fund and a discrimination suit. Maybe your friend does not know about them. The Baptist preacher with whom I talked went to great lengths to explain that Billy did not try to answer all the scandalous charges raised against him. “He just loves and prays for” those who charge him. Financially, he can afford to do a lot of loving and praying, as the probate of his estate will one day show. Spiritually, he would be well-advised to spend some time repenting and being converted (Acts 3:19). Of course, many will say that this is written out of jealousy. No, it is written to remind those who read this not to believe every fellow who comes along and gets a great name for himself (1 Jno. 4:1). Instead of finding a “pig in a poke” you just might find a skunk in the collection plate!

Truth Magazine XXI: 45, pp. 713-714
November 17, 1977

By Roland Worth, Jr.

People seem willing to tolerate just about anything so long as it results in growth. In the business world everyone will recognize this attitude at work. “X million can’t be wrong,” was one of the classic examples, used to great effect by a cigarette company a few years back. I wonder if the spawners of that idiotic statement lived in Germany during the birth of Fascism? Or in China during the Great Cultural Revolution? Millions upon millions supported these movements yet no one in this Nation would count them right by virtue by that fact alone.

Sexual double-entendre blossoms, especially in the advertising of certain airlines. The quality of the product is secondary to the “image” that is sold the people. Profits are the name of the game and the “sexy image” sells the product. Does anyone really believe that if marijuana were legalized that the major cigarette companies would not soon be grinding them out by the millions, loudly boasting of their great virtues?

Most people are realistic enough to recognize these evils in the business world yet many seem incredibly blind when the same “numbers game” is played in regard to religion. If we may go into the denominational world for an example, we should note the explanation of one Liberal as to why he supported the revivals of the Fundamentalist Billy Sunday, “Why, my dear sir,” he wrote, “the man has trampled all over me and my theology. He has kicked my teachings up and down that

platform like a football. He has outraged every ideal I have had regarding my sacred profession. But what does that count against the results he has accomplished? My congregation will be increased by hundreds” (quoted by William G. McLoughlin, Jr., Modern Revivalism: Charles Grandison Finney To Billy Braham, Ronald Press Company, New York: 1959, pp 419-420).

We would not expect such an attitude among genuine Christians. Yet was not a key argument in promoting the unscriptural innovations among us how many people could be converted? Wasn’t it the same old “numbers game” at work? Brethren became so obsessed with numerical growth that they forgot to make sure that the organizations they were using were authorized by .scripture. What they forgot is that numbers alone should never be our goal. If numbers were our goal, the better way of achieving it would be by abolishing our emphasis on immersion, the purpose of baptism and the lack of instrumental music. But we would never to that. That would be abolishing our claim to go strictly by a “Thus saith the Lord.” Brethren would instinctively react against such a down-grading of doctrine. Yet they would readily compromise the organization and work of the church, as also prescribed in scripture. The same God that revealed the purpose of baptism also revealed the proper work of the church. His will is defied just as much when we change or add to the work of the church as when we change the purpose and act of baptism.

Once again it took a division to make brethren realize that numbers alone are not enough-that scriptural authority must always be paramount. But for how long will we remember our lesson?

Truth Magazine XXI 45, p. 712
November 17, 1977

By Carol R. Lumpkin

The baptismal measure of the Holy Spirit is misunderstood by many people in the religious world. It will be my purpose to present a short study of this important subject as presented in God’s word. The prophet Joel said, “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions” (Joel 2:28).

Jesus said, “For John (that is, John the Baptist) truly baptized with water; but ye (apostles) shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence” (Acts 1:5). “But ye (apostles) shall receive power, after that the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judean, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (Jn. 14:26). The apostles were instructed to tarry in Jerusalem until they received this power of the Holy Spirit (Lk. 24:49).

“And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were ail with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them, And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:1-4). The apostles were the only ones who received the baptismal measure of the Holy Spirit on the Pentecost day. This power came upon them to enable them to speak in tongues, thus to proclaim the gospel of Christ. The power was not for the purpose to save anyone. Peter declared that the Holy Spirit which was poured out upon them was that which was spoken by Joel (Acts 2:16-17). Since the prophecy said, the power would be poured out upon all flesh; we must look for a second case of this baptism upon the Gentiles.

The second, and only other case, of this measure of the Holy Spirit came upon the household of Cornelius, as recorded in Acts 10. “While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them which heard the work. And they (Jews) of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God” (Acts 10,44-46). The purpose for the Holy Spirit falling upon the Gentiles was to convince the Jews that the Gentiles were to have the gospel preached to them. The purpose could not have been to save them, for Peter said, “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. . .” (Acts 10:47-48).

Peter said that which fell upon the house of Cornelius was like that which fell on them (apostles) in the beginning (Acts 11:15). There is no one going to receive the baptismal measure of the Holy Spirit today. No one has received it since Cornelius and household received it. Truly, the prophesy of Joel was fulfilled in Acts 2 and Acts 10.

Truth Magazine XXI: 45, pp. 711-712
November 17, 1977

By Morris W. R. Bailey

Having pointed out in a previous article that the concept of a universal church government ultimately led to the rise of the papal office, I shall now show that it was the concept of activating the universal church in the field of evangelism that led to the formation of the missionary society of a hundred and twenty-five years ago, with the resultant division that in turn produced the Christian church.

Campbell’s Reasoning

Strange as it seems, the missionary society was, in a large measure, the “brain child” of Alexander Campbell. Students of restoration history have speculated much as to the apparent inconsistency of his arguments favoring the society, in the light of previously made statements concerning the all-sufficiency of the church. One thing seems evident, and that is that Campbell never became completely divorced from the concept of associations. Taking a charitable view of his actions, we may suggest that he was studying his way out of denominationalism, and probably did not have the clear perception of things that others have later had. Someone has said that, pygmies standing on the shoulders of giants can see farther than the giants themselves can.

Be that as it may, the principle on which Campbell sought to justify the formation of the society was that of universal church action. His reasoning was that no one congregation had the resources nor the ability to evangelize the world. Such a program, he reasoned, must be the result of the joint effort of all congregations. Typical of his thinking in this regard he wrote.

“Now if Christ’s kingdom consists of ten thousand families, or churches-particular distinct, and independent communities–how are they to act in concert, maintain unity or interests, or cooperate in any system of conservation or enlargement, unless by consultation and systematic cooperation? I affirm it to be, in my humble opinion, and from years of observation and experience impossible” (from Millennial Harbinger, Feb., 1842).

From the above quotation, and others, it is evident that Alexander Campbell based his reasoning on two mistaken premises.

1. Speaking (correctly) of the church universal as the kingdom, he assumed (incorrectly) that it was composed of all the local congregations in the aggregate.

2. Assuming that God had given no pattern for church cooperation, he thus concluded that men were free to form their own pattern whereby congregations could cooperate with one another in preaching the gospel. Out of this reasoning the American Christian Missionary Society was organized in 1849.

Had Campbell’s premises been correct there would be no doubt as to the validity of his conclusion. But he was wrong in thinking of the church universal (or kingdom) as being composed of all local congregations in the aggregate. As a kingdom its membership is made up of individual citizens (Eph. 2:19; Phil. 3:20). As the body of Christ it is composed of individual members (Romans 12:4,5; 1 Cor. 12:12,27). As the house (family) of God its membership is those who are “sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:26).

Campbell was likewise wrong in his assumption that God had left men free to provide whatever organization for the cooperation of local churches seemed most expedient. A fact overlooked by him and all other proponents of such universal church action is that God provided organization for the local congregation. He not only ordained that there be elders in every church (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5), but he also ordained that they were to be chosen with care, and laid down specific qualifications that must be met by those aspiring to be elders (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:6-9). While these qualifications have been the occasion for much discussion, and while they set a high standard, they are not such as to place the office of an elder out of reach. This is obvious from the fact that Paul and Barnabas, on the return part of the first missionary journey, appointed elders in churches that were comparatively young.

This raises a question that was overlooked by Campbell and all others whose reasoning has led them to conclude that God left man free to devise and form a universal or general organization to coordinate the work of thousands of local congregations. The question: Does it not seem strange that God, who gave specific organization to the local congregation (Phil. 1:1), and required specific qualifications of its officers, left it to the wisdom of man to determine the type of universal organization necessary to coordinate the efforts (whether evangelistic or benevolent) of thousands of local congregations, and to determine the qualifications of its officers? Strange indeed!

God’s Wisdom — Through the Church

To the Ephesians Paul wrote that, ‘To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in the heavenly places might be made known through the church the manifold wisdom of God; according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Eph. 3:10, 11).

Paul thus taught that the church is the culmination of God’s eternal purpose, and manifests his divine wisdom. That wisdom is especially seen as it relates to its autonomous feature, with elders in every congregation, whose oversight is limited to that congregation. Some things to be considered are:

1. In every congregation actively engaged in the Lord’s work there will be day to day decisions regarding its various activities that must be made by its overseers (elders). Who is better qualified to make those decisions than men of similar cultural backgrounds and living under similar conditions to the backgrounds and conditions of those being overseen? How could a man, or group of men, living in Rome, or Constantinople, or London effectively and efficiently oversee a congregation. located in the United States, or Canada? How could such do the work that God has committed to elders? How could they feed the local congregation, as is required of its elders (Acts 20:28)? How could they “exhort in sound doctrine and convict the gainsayer” (Titus 3:9), from a distance of possibly thousands of miles? How could they administer discipline, as is sometimes required of the local congregation (1 Cor. 5:4, 5)? And how could they effectively and efficiently oversee the distribution of any necessary benevolence as was done by elders in New Testament times (Acts 11:29,30)? All these, and any other activities of a congregation can be most effectively overseen and administered by men of that congregation, familiar with local conditions.

2. Another fact, often overlooked, in connection with autonomous government of the local congregation, is that of the possible (we may say, even probable) effect of any apostasy that might occur. The corruption of a universal form of church government would, in all probability result in the apostasy of the church, universal. Of this, the Roman Catholic church is a prime example. There, the pope, being the supreme head dictates the policies of that body. Every Roman Catholic, and every Catholic congregation throughout the world is obligated to accept and abide by his decrees.

While autonomous government of the local congregation does not insure against apostasy in that congregation, it does serve to localize its pernicious influence, and renders it less likely that other congregations will be corrupted. Paul foretold the coming apostasy of some of the elders of the church at Ephesus. He said, “I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them” (Acts 20:29,30). Their corrupting influence would be confined, for the most part, to the church at Ephesus.

In the second and third chapters of Revelation John was writing to seven churches of Asia (Rev. 1:4). Some of those churches, especially Sardis and Laodicea, had become corrupted (Rev. 3:2,16). But their condition, displeasing as it was to the Lord, had not effected the churches of Smyrna and Philadelphia against whom Jesus brought no criticism.

Thus we have shown that just as the concept of universal church government eventually culminated in the papal system, so the concept of universal church action in evangelism was responsible for another apostasy that sabotaged the restoration movement early in its history and led to the formation of what is known as the. Christian church, some branches of which have openly identified themselves with the denominational world.

In an article to follow I propose to point out that the concept of universal church action is responsible, in a large degree for many current promotions among brethren.

Truth Magazine XXI: 45, pp. 710-711
November 17, 1977