Truth Magazine

By Donald P Ames

It is a bit sad today to watch various liberal brethren get all upset and concerned about what is happening to the’ church today. In their efforts to “save the church,” they have begun new journals and’ increased the furor of the battle regularly. They have laid aside the old blankets of “Love covers all” and “Where there is no pattern,” and almost sound like the olden days when the Gospel Guardian stood on the forefront fighting the. good fight of faith. They have made an about-face, and are now demanding a return to the word of God and authority for various practices being introduced by the ultra-liberals. Some have even gotten so “nasty” they have had the audacity to actually call names of people being marked as false teachers.

As these young ultra-liberals continue following the liberalistic teachings of Leroy Garrett and Carl Ketcherside in opening the doors of fellowship ever wider and further from the truth, we hear the present “conservative liberals” attempting to draw a line to stop such activities. They object to such publications as Mission, and even to the Firm Foundation (now pushing the doctrine that examples are not binding at all), and have even begun publishing new books that have a ring more conservative than formerly.

But, the sad part of it all is that they still cannot see it is the doctrines they themselves began nearly thirty years ago that has laid the foundation of their problems today. They cannot understand why the word of God no longer concerns these ultra-liberals, when they themselves raised them on a diet of “We do many things for which we have no authority.” And even more saddening, they still fail to see their own inconsistencies and failure to abide by the Word of God while expecting others to give heed to it.

Now, just to make sure some of my brethren who are moving in the other direction do not misunderstand my reasoning from here on, let me pause and make this clarification: I find nothing in the Word of God that justifies the objections presently being raised against such private organizations as Florida College, the Cogdill Foundation, or even in individually supported orphan home! When the Willis-Jenkins Debate is printed, I believe the printed discussion, along with the others now being conducted in Searching The Scriptures and Gospel Anchor will go far in laying this error to rest again-as it was during the days of Garrett and Ketcherside’s original errors.

But, I fear many of those in the liberal camp have never yet comprehended completely what the battle for the past thirty years has involved. They are looking at the end results of some of their own projects (such as the error and self-perpetuation of the Herald of Truth), wringing their hands and crying, “How did this ever come about?” Yet, they are continuing to defend the error that gave birth to this very apostasy!

In the August 1975 issue of Contending For The Faith, which is “sponsored by and under the oversight” of the Shaded Mountain elders in Birmingham (and yet also charges $2 per year for subscriptions!), Ira Rice opens a back-door hint for closer fellowship with the “antis” in his fight against “liberalism.” Note his comments: “I get a large charge out of brethren who consider his paper `liberal,’ as you mentioned the brother there who throws it into the trash. It is anything but that! . . . I admit that I feel far closer to those who oppose intercongregational cooperation than I do toward the liberals” (p. 16). Well, this is one writer who is not taken in by such an approach, and shall continue to brand Ira Rice as liberal, and back it up with his own comments. In fact, in the very same issue, Brother Rice forever laid any doubts any might have had to rest, and confirmed that he has not understood what the arguments against institutionalism for the past century have even involved.

Note the following by Ira Rice in the same issue: “If the so-called Christian colleges were teaching only Bible and Bible-related subjects, then I would not know of any reasons congregations as well as individuals could not pillar and ground the truth thus taught.” In other words, an organization set up and operated by individuals as a private organization separate and apart from the church, for the express purpose of teaching the Bible, could be church-supported. This is precisely the same position held by Dale Larson, president of York College in York, Nebraska. In a personal letter to me, dated December 9, 1971, he reaffirmed this: “The Board of Directors affirmed from the beginning that there would be nothing unscriptural with congregational money going directly and exclusively to the teaching of the Bible. You know this has been my personal position.” In addition, almost monthly, other congregations across the nation have mailed out pleas for other churches to help them send students to both public and private schools (mostly foreign-there is still too, much opposition to church-supported schools in America for them to openly face the music at home).

Such reasoning as just illustrated opens the floodgates for the church to support any human institution that happens to be doing a work similar to the work the church is doing. Certainly there is no consistent position they could take that would allow them to condemn the Missionary Society as originally set up in 1849 and still maintain the previously mentioned positions. It is my firm conviction we have become guilty of condemning a thing by name only (“surely you would not think I would condone such a thing as a Missionary Society”) and have absolutely no concept whatsoever about the nature, organization, and function of such an organization. Consequently, following nothing but a “traditional” position, we have swallowed the whole camel before we ever knew it was even in the tent!

But, again returning to the same issue of his paper, Brother Rice continues, “On the other hand, take orphan homes. God told us all-individuals and congregations alike-to take care of orphans. Any home where orphans are taken care of ,thus becomes an orphans’ home. Since the command (by necessary implication) is generic, then we are left free as to how to carry it out. To bind one way of doing this is to bind where the Lord has loosed.” First of all, let me begin by challenging him for the authority for such a bold assumption! He has stated a broad generalization of orphan care, let us see if he can find the scriptures that support it. Secondly, since he himself has stated “any home” (I wonder if that includes the antis’ too), and since he has argued the “how” is not binding (when will we get him to understand it is not the “how” but the “who” we are trying to get them to face?), the Baptist orphan homes evidently can now begin looking for more contributions from the churches of Christ-surely he would not become “anti”‘ and begin “binding” which homes the churches could care for!

It never ceases to amaze me how some brethren can see some things so clearly and yet be so blind on other things which are an exact parallel. If the church can support organizations separate and apart from the church-be it an orphan home, school, “Bible” school, or a Missionary Society-it can support them all. The scripture that justifies the one justifies the other as well. No, these liberal brethren have not changed their stripe, they. have just found another animal that has a stronger stink!

To paraphrase the words of Christ in Matt. 13 and adapt them to a modern-day setting, we could say, “Hearing ye shall hear, but only what you want to; and seeing ye shall see, but only those things that do not affect your pet projects: for this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should awaken and realize that their various human institutions and schemes are unauthorized by the word of God also, and thus be forced to give them up and be converted and return to the simplicity of the New Testament again.”

No, to stand with such a position against rank “liberalism” is about like joining hands with the Baptists because we both agree the Methodists are wrong on sprinkling. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord-in His way and in His plan! But, O that our liberal brethren could wake up and learn the lesson of history the past century has wrought, as well as the simplicity of the New Testament pattern and the safety God designed within it.

Truth Magazine XXI: 1, pp. 12-13
January 6, 1977

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Virginia: “Can it be established from the New Testament that capital punishment is pleasing to God in our day and time?”

Reply:

Capital punishment is defined by Webster, ” execution as punishment for a crime; the death penalty.”

The Eternal Principle

“Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man” (Gen. 9:6). This text states: (1) The act, murder; (2) who shall execute the murderer, “man;” (3) The reason for the retribution, because man is made in God’s image. All men in all eras are made in God’s image (Acts 17:29), therefore, in every age the murderer may be executed “by man,” that is, by man duly constituted to execute the sentence. To do away with capital punishment, one would have to eliminate the principle upon which it stands. Has the premise of Genesis 9:6 been altered?

The Precepts of Moses

Sundry sins were punishable by death under the law of Moses. Kidnaping, dishonor to parents, murder, and a host of others too numerous to chronicle here, all drew the death penalty (Ex. 21:12-17). God delivered laws through Moses. God also gave penalties for those who violated those laws. Often, that penalty was execution, death, capital punishment. It was performed “by man,” by men authorized to render the punishment. “He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses” (Heb. 10:28).

In The New Testament

We owe the government its due (Matt. 22:21). One function of civil government is to protect the good, law abiding citizen. Another duty of government is to serve God as “a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” (Rom. 13:4). We must submit to government’s right to punish the wicked “for the Lord’s sake” (1 Pet. 2:13, 14). Paul put this principle and his life on the line when he said in court, “For if I be an offender, or have committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die (Acts 25:11). Paul said he could have been guilty and he could have been “worthy of death,” that is, a fit subject for capital punishment. As such, he was willing to die. How could Paul have said this if government had no right to execute him? How could he have volunteered to submit to execution, even though guilty, if capital punishment was not a legitimate operation of government?

“The man” appointed to execute the criminal is civil government, “the minister of God,” who “beareth not the sword in vain” (Rom. 13:4). The sword is at once the emblem and instrument of punishment and death. Rulers are “a terror …to the evil” (Rom. 13:3). A portion of that “terror” is seen in the fact that they have the duty to kill those who have committed acts “worthy of death.”

Truth Magazine XXI:1, pp. 11-12
January 6, 1977

By Tarry L.CluffFort

There is a great deal of misunderstanding by many as to the purpose of the church. Some think that the church should be a political power to involve itself in the politics of the land. Others feel that the church has the task of educating people with secular knowledge. There are still others that think the church should go into secular business in order to make money. All of these ideas are foreign to the Bible teaching as to why Christ died or built His church.

Nevertheless, one of the most erroneous ideas that people have about the church is that the church is to be some kind of a social club or center. This, too, is foreign to Bible teaching. This erroneous idea has led to “fellowship halls” and kitchens being built, bingo games, parties, and entertainment of every kind. But where is the authority from God’s word for the church to be a social club? Where in God’s word did Christ ever teach that this is a work of His church? Is this one of the purposes Christ died to build a church?

When Paul wrote to the brethren at Corinth concerning their attitude toward the Lord’s supper, he made a comment that we should observe: “Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s supper, for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God, and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you” (1 Cor. 11:20-22). They had made the Lord’s supper no more important than a common meal, a social gathering. Paul went on to explain what the Lord’s supper should mean to the Christian and concluded his argument with these words: “If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you may not come tegether for judgment 11:34).

Now I do not know any church that uses their “fellowship hall” in their observance of the Lord’s supper. But the use that is made by churches with their “fellowship halls” or their kitchens, (neither are even mentioned in the Bible) is the same type of abuse that the Corinthians were guilty of in regards to the Lord’s supper. The Lord’s supper is an act of worship, which the Corinthian brethren abused by making it of no more importance than a common meal. That same type of abuse is done when people make the church into a social club by having a “fellowship hall” in their buildings.

Jesus intended His church to be a spiritual organization, not a social organization. Peter wrote: “Ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5). The church is to provide the Gospel of Christ to save a person’s soul, (Rom. 1:16-17). This is called evangelism. The church also edifies her members so each member grows in the gospel. The only other thing the church is authorized to do is to relieve the needs of her members if they become in need of such relief. (Eph. 4:12, 1 Cor. 16:1).

Let us let the church be the church and a social club be a social club.

Truth Magazine XXI: 1, pp. 10-11
January 6, 1977

By Don Potts

Today it is no uncommon thing to hear a congregation sing, “Take time to be holy, the world rushes on,” then to hear them urge the preacher to cut every corn possible to shorten his sermon in order for the congregation to be out and gone by twelve o’clock. clock: Take your time and hurry up, “consistency thou art a jewel!.” May I ask what all the rush is about? I hear brethren talking about how to pass the Lord’s supper around in less time, and how we can sing two songs instead of three or four and perhaps two verses of the invitation song rather than all four verses. At the same time, “long winded” preachers are rejected in favor of “short and sweet” preachers. But why? `

Much is being said about a current “preacher shortage,”pshaw! I know that we have many loyal, dedicated brethren and congregations, but in many cases we have a preacher shortage all right, a shortage of preachers that will preach what will preach what we want, like we want, and, in the length of time we want. For example, I recall driving three hundred miles, in a round trip, to talk to one congregation about working with them. The sermon preached was one that would have been received in any sound congregation, but they concluded immediately that I was not the man for the job. You ask why? – I preached entirely too long! It has been said that a preacher cannot hold the attention of an audience over twenty five or thirty minutes. If this is true of an audience, one or two things seems to be true, the preacher needs to spend more time with the book and less time socializing, or else, there is something wrong with the spirituality of the congregation, and I will let them tell me which it is.

But someone says, “consolidation” is a sign of a well prepared preacher. But consolidation does not assure either an informative lesson or a short one. For example, Archibald McLean in his book, Alexander Campbell . . . as a Preacher says, “At home Mr. Campbell spoke from an hour to an hour and~a half. Abroad and on special occasions he spoke twice as long. He often spoke two or three times a day. The length of his sermons was in harmony with f he customs of the time, and barely met the expectations and wishes of the people”` `(page 30). Didn’t Campbell and preachers of that day and time know about consolidation? Who would have the audacity to say that Campbell was an ill-prepared speaker? It might be well for those who associate short sermons with intellectualism to read some of the sermons of pioneer preachers like Benjamin Franklin whose sermons fill at least twenty to twenty five pages of solid print. Those sermons are in every respect consolidated and illuminating, and in no respect, to my thinking, do they fall short of the mark.

Again, what is all the rush about? T.W. Brents once said, ” . . . If you will let your preachers know that you cannot endure sound doctrine, he may learn to feed you on fables, and tickle your itching ears with nice little half hour speeches exactly suited to your taste. Preachers are not so dull as to be unable to learn that half-hour discourses are much more easily prepared and delivered than discourses of an hour or more in length. There is not a field hand in all the country that does not know that a half hour’s work is more easily done than an hour’s work. There is another advantage, too, in half-hour sermons. When a preacher has to preach to the same congregation for a number of years, if he cuts up what he knows into small sermons, having only one or two thoughts in each, the balance in nice filling, he will be able to make his stock go much further than if he prunes out all surplus drapery and puts in discourses of an hour or more, filled with solid shot throughout. Oh, but he who makes short discourses learns to consolidate his thoughts and say more in less time. Such has not been our observation. These half-hour speeches are made up of flowers designed to tickle the itching ear, and, as a rule, have nothing solid in them. The man who has something to say is the one who consolidates. He knows he can discuss no important subject thoroughly in half an hour, and if he wishes to teach the people he selects subjects that have something in them worth preaching, and he has no use for surplus words, or redundant verbiage just to fill up, or embellish his sermons. We have no objection to elegance or style, but we are more concerned about what is said than about elegance of expression. We would rather have sound doctrine plainly and forcibly expressed, than to have the ears tickled with a straw” (Gospel Sermons by T.W. Brents, pg. 206, 207).

Again I ask, “Why all the cry for shorter sermons, shorter services?” Is it because we love to hear the gospel expounded more, or because we today are more spiritual than they were in the days of Campbell and Brents? Is it because we want to get out so we might rush across town to share the good news with some lost and perishing soul? Is it because there are more important tasks that must be attended to on the Lord’s day? Or, is it that we have forgotten that the first day of the week is indeed the Lord’s day (Rev. 1:10)? I repeat, the Lord’s day, not the Lord’s hour! Rather than planning the services in such a manner that brethren can be about their business, it is high time that they start planning them in such a manner as to be about the Father’s business. This day belongs to the Lord, and if so, it is not ours, like the rest of the days of the week. Unlike the Sabbath of the Old Testament, it is not a day of rest, it is a day for the work and service of the Lord, a day of worship and mutual edification. Instead of firing and brow beating godly preachers for preaching too long, the church would do well to plan the services and make it a day of edification and indoctrination of the church, a day of preaching and worshiping (Acts 2:42). If then, there is time left after such worship and service, rather than spending it in the field or in the shop or plant, why not use that precious time reading the Bible, visiting and ministering to the sick, “warning the unruly,” “comforting the feeble,” “supporting the weak,” or “teaching a lost soul about Christ”?

A woman of my acquaintance retorted, “Well it’s always been a custom among churches of Christ that the services let out at twelve.” Of course, such is no more true than to say the early church started it’s services at ten. But the thought that came to my mind was, if it is only the custom of brethren, its time we change our custom and give the first day of the week back to the Lord. In short, let’s stop saying, “Take your time and hurry up.”

Truth Magazine XXI: 1, pp. 9-10
January 6, 1977