Truth Magazine

By H. Edward McCaskill

I have been a reader of The Spiritual Sword, published by the Getwell church of Christ in Memphis and edited by my long time friend and former teacher, Thomas B. Warren, for a number of years. The material contained in this publication has been excellent and I have appreciated a host of timely and scriptural articles from Tom and his staff of writers.

Occasionally, however, Tom gets a bit overly zealous and takes a thrust at some he designates as “antis.” I assume, in the present usage, as he has in the past, he is referring to those of us who oppose the sponsoring church arrangement and church support of human institutions.

In the Volume 6, Number 3 issue, dated April of last year, Brother Warren says in as article entitled, “Skepticism is the Basic Issue Now,” “On the one hand, the men who uphold the `anti’ positions (I mean no unkindness in using this term) are men who believe in God and in the Bible as His inspired, inerrant, and authoritative word. They hold that truth is absolute (objective) and is attainable (can be learned). In all of this (and more) they are right. But, they disallowed what God has authorized (cf. Tim. 4:1-5) and thus caused great trouble to the church.”

I, for one, do not believe a simple statement such as the above, regardless of how kindly and graciously made should go unnoticed. Brother Warren’s magazine, to my knowledge, has not devoted an issue to an objective study of the “Institutional Controversy.” Nevertheless, statements of the above accuse those of us who have for almost a quarter of a century sought God’s authorization for the above mentioned endeavors of being the guilty ones of disturbing the Lord’s church. If God has authorized such then I, with all honesty and sincerity, want to know it.

Tom, it seems, has wilfully forgotten that he among others helped some of us to see the truth in the institutional controversy and the fallacy of false reasoning on these issues many years ago. For example, in a three part series of truth-setting articles that appeared in the Gospel Guardian, Volume 6, Numbers 3, 4, and 5, dated May 20, May 27, June 3, 1954 respectively, under the title, “Evasions of the Law of Rationalism”, he showed, in article 1, that the Herald of Truth sponsoring-type-arrangement and church support of human institutions such as Boles Home could not be defended on the basis of the say-so of some highly respected individual. In article 2 he showed that such could not be authorized on the basis of emotional appeal. Simply stated, the end does not justify the means. The third article, “Argumentum ad hominem” – argument to the man-stated, “Again, some brother writes an article in which he calls in question the principle of ‘cooperation’ involved in such things as the Herald of Truth! As an ‘answer’ to the arguments which were made, other brethren say, Oh, he is just as “anti.” He is not for real plans which really get the job of preaching done. You need pay no attention to what he says. . . . ” And further in closing his article Tom makes a timely appeal: “Brethren, may this sincere plea sink into good and honest hearts: let us grow spiritually to the point where our practices may be called in question without our making a personal attack upon the man who asked the questions.” Tom was right then even though he may have forgotten his appeal and has resorted to the same tactics he at one time abhorred. One would definitely surmise and conclude from a reading of these articles (and others that he wrote —- remember those two interesting fictitious characters Kareah and Jakim?). Later he changed and even debated the issues with Bro. Cecil Douthitt in Houston, and assisted others as a moderator in their discussions. Still, some of us have not been convinced with his “component parts-constituent elements” arguments establishing Biblical authority, nor appeals to emotion, or to name calling, nor to the words of highly respected men of the scripturalness of such arrangements under consideration.

Furthermore, if seeking Biblical authority through command, example, or necessary inference, has caused great trouble in the church then trouble shall continue. I will simply not accept the incrimination of Tom’s usage of Tim 4:1-5 and admit that I have “disallowed what God has authorized.” I am still waiting and willing and anxious to learn, after all these years, where God has allowed it.

Truth Magazine, XX:26, p. 11
June 24, 1976

By Donald P Ames

The other Sunday, while driving to worship services, we passed one of the local denominational buildings, and my youngest son remarked, “That’s a bad church, isn’t it, Daddy?” Of course, one’s first reaction is to point out that calling it a “bad church” is not polite, but that it is a church that does not follow the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. To this, he promptly replied, “But that makes it a bad church, doesn’t it?”

Perhaps this is one of the problems we are facing today. We have become too concerned about being polite, and have not called a spade a spade. By this I do not mean one should go out of his way to deliberately be insulting and offensive, but on the other hand, we need to make a clearer distinction between the Lord’s church and those of the world. Yes, it this context, it is a “bad church!”

But, what characteristics make up a “bad church.” Surely none of us would want to be affiliated with a church that was bad, so we ought to give some thought to this very idea. If a church can be described as “bad,” then it cannot be part of that which came from God (James 1:17), and we should want to avoid it at all costs.

First of all, we might note that a church is “bad” if it does not care enough about the Lord to honor Him by wearing His name. We would not term women of the world as “good” if they went about dishonoring their husbands as their heads and seeking constantly to be identified as belonging to someone else instead. Even so, the church of the Lord belongs to Christ. He purchased it with His own blood (Acts 20:28), and loves it as husbands are to love their wives (Eph. 5:22-33). Since it is the bride of Christ (Rev. 21:2), it is but natural that it would be identified as the “church of Christ” (Rom. 16:16). Any church that does not give the Lord the respect He deserves in this way, but prefers to flirt around with the names of human origin in reality dishonors Christ by such actions, and is a “bad church.”

In this same line of thought, a church could be identified as a “bad church” (even if it honored Christ by wearing His name) if it refuses to honor Him as truly being its head. Again, if Mrs. Jones was willing to wear the name of Mrs. Jones, but refused to be in submission to her husband and preferred to run after other men, she would be termed “bad.” Even so, Christ’s being the head of the church (Eph. 5:23-24), has the authority to direct its activities. Not only does the Bible so affirm (Eph. 1:20-23), but such is inherent in the very confession we make in obedience to the Gospel of Christ (Rom. 10:9-10). But too many churches today have set aside the headship (authority) of Christ and begun to flirt with practices and doctrines of human origin.

Whether it be following the creeds of men, the pursuit of the Social Gospel, or practices of human origin such as instrumental music and centralized cooperative arrangements; if such cannot be justified by the word of God, then it has originated and developed by the flirtation and seeking of the good favor of men. As such, the church would stand in rebellion to its head, and thus be correctly identified as a “bad church.”

Again, a church can be identified as “bad” when that which it teaches is designed to deceive and mislead others. If someone was able to lead you to great riches, but instead sent you off on a wild goose chase that resulted in you being lost all day and perhaps even cost you your life, we would say such a person was mean and bad. The same is true of the church. This is not to say that all do so intentionally, but denominational churches deceive and mislead people into thinking they have found salvation, when in reality such is not so. They convince them they can be saved by “faith only” and thus they feel “safe,” when in reality their soul is still lost and seeking. They convince them that sprinkling is acceptable as baptism, but the Bible plainly teaches that baptism is by immersion (Rom. 6:4), and that in such one obtains the forgiveness of his sins (Rom. 6:7, Acts 2:38). They claim it makes no difference of what church one is a member when in reality Christ died to purchase His church (Acts 20:28) and this is the only one He has promised to save (Eph. 5:26-27). Others would even go so far as to deny that there is any need to be concerned whether or not the word of God was so – and usually deny it in the end. To them, the important thing is that you “do your own thing.” However this too will result in souls being lost for eternity (Matt. 7:21-23). Such deception and misleading certainly makes a church “bad” in that regardless of their good points, they still give a false security that results in one being lost. Even though one may sincerely believe a lie, that does not make it right in the sight of God (read 1 Kings 13, particularly v. 18 and 21).

But other churches decline to teach all that God would have them, and engage in practices that contradict God’s word (silently assuming it is acceptable, and are unconcerned about it). A woman may not teach that fornication is right, but if she practices it anyway, her practice is a testimony against her that she is bad. So also with the church. Some will not teach for the instrument, institutionalism, and fellowship with those engaged in practices contrary to the word of God. If you pinned them down, they would probably reply, “I’m not sure yet. I haven’t studied it.” Yet they go ahead and practice it – and this in direct violation of the statement in Rom. 14:23. By their silence, they are giving their approval. They are, in reality, in the same class as those Edomites whom God reproved Obadiah 1:11: “In the day that thou stoodest on the other side, in the day that the strangers carried away captive his forces, and foreigners entered into his gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem, even thou was as one of them.” They, too, are deceiving the people, and shall have to give account in the Day of Judgment, just as those who “sufferest that woman Jezebel which calleth herself a prophetess to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication” (Rev. 2:20). Such a church is not a “good church” in God’s eyes, and thus would be “bad” for failing to “contend earnestly for the faith” (Jude 3).

Yes, we need to be more emphatic! Quit minimizing the error of denominationalism! Quit being so polite that people do not get the point of our lessons! No, we do not need to go out of our way to be rude and offensive, but on the other hand, if it is the truth, let us be men enough to stand up and say so! “Yes, son, it is a ‘bad church.'”

Truth Magazine, XX:26, p. 9-10
June 26, 1976

By Cecil Belcher

It is with deep sorrow that we report the untimely death of Brother Russell Parks, age 68. Brother Parks was preaching for the Central Church of Christ Terre Haute, Indiana at the time of his death. He was born June 9, 1907 and passed from this life March 11, 1976 at the Regional Hospital, Terre Haute, Indiana. Memorial services were conducted at the Orvis-Palmer Funeral Home, South Bend, Indiana March 15 with Brother Doyle Hood leading the congregation present in songs and Cecil Belcher delivered the Bible lesson to those assembled. Brother Parks loved the Gospel of Christ and it was indeed fitting that it should be preached on that occasion.

Brother Parks had been a faithful member of the Caroline Street church in South Bend, for a number of years. Shortly after my move to South Bend, it was possible for us to begin teaching Bible classes in some nursing homes. His interest increased and he decided that he would seek for a small congregation that could provide him a place to live but no salary. He felt that he could live off of his retirement benefits. In late October, 1975, he moved to work with the Central church in Terre Haute, Indiana. He was enjoying his work with the brethren there and anticipating much good being done but, on March 4th, when returning home from having his evening meal he became ill. He stopped his car and stepped to the sidewalk and was attacked by some one or ones injuring him so that he was paralyzed from his neck down. He was placed into the rear seat of his car and driven to another part of town; his billfold was taken and he was left in the car for some twelve hours when a child heard his call for help and summoned its mother who called for assistance. He was placed in the intensive care unit where he was only able to regain use of his arms. My wife and I were able to visit him March 6th and he was hoping to be able to carry on his preaching duties in a short time but due to the paralysis his condition grew worse and he passed from this life about one week after the brutal attack.

He is survived by two sons, George of Indianapolis, Larry of South Bend, five grandchildren, two brothers, Tom of Oklahoma, Ralph of Indianapolis, and one sister, Ruby Pope of Plainfield, Indiana.

He was loved much by the church here at South Bend and the church in Terre Haute as well as by a large number of friends and brethren who knew him.

Brother Parks had written and published a book of poems entitled “God’s Plan and Other Poems” one of which is used here.

Man’s Eternal Soul

My soul was steeped in sin and lost

My life meant naught to me,

Until I heard the story told

Of Christ on Calvary.

I went to Him in simple faith

and ask “What must I do?”

I found the answer in His word

Just like all sinners do.

Baptism freed me from my sins,

(Oh what a friend is He!)

The blood he shed on Calvary’s cross

Can set all sinners free.

And now I live my life for God

And soon my home shall be

A mansion that my Saviour said

That he’d prepare for me.

(Russell Parks)

Truth Magazine, XX:26, p. 7
June 26, 1976

By Roy E. Cogdill

Unity is primarily a congregational problem. What the Bible teaches on unity is principally applicable to the local church. Unity in the local church is an individual obligation. It grows out of the obligations that rest mutually on those who are fellow members of the local church.

We are interested in the obligation to restore unity where it has been disturbed and to preserve unity where it exists. Every member of a local church shares with every other member the obligation to contribute to its unity. This obligation is emphasized by the Holy Spirit in Eph. 4:3, “Endeavoring (giving diligence-ASV) to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” This is a matter in which all must be diligent. Constant attention and effort is required to preserve unity. The devil is always alert to every opportunity to create disturbance, alienate and set at variance those who should be united in the service of Christ. We cannot be too careful to avoid it. The advancement and progress of the Kingdom of Christ and the salvation of souls in addition to our own is involved. Faithfulness in doing the will of God requires it.

In the first letter to the Corinthian Church, Paul spent the first four chapters dealing with a divided condition in that church. The Corinthians were full of false pride and haughtiness. They had grown into a large congregation and were probably boasting of their great program of work. They gloried in the great numbers in attendance, the many additions they were having, their fine building, their wealth, and many other outward signs of their strength as a church. Paul called this attitude “carnality” (1 Cor. 3:1-3)-a fleshly and worldly disposition and rebuked them for their glorying in these outward things rather than being ashamed and mourning for the sad state of the Lord’s Church because of their division and sinfulness otherwise (1 Cor. 4:6-13. 5:2).

There is much evidence of such an attitude today among churches of Christ everywhere. We take great pride in our rate of growth and write great swelling words to the various publicity mediums in our country about how rapidly we are growing and have grown. We boast about the great institutions we are building and the great programs of work that are being carried out, expanding them out of all truthfulness and proportion by our imaginations. We raise from the churches staggering sums of money for about everything under the sun, whether it is a part of the mission that God has given His Church or not (all the way from sending great evangelistic parties, including a good percentage of female “missionaries,” all over the world, to sending cows to Korea and a veterinarian to take care of them.

One of the modern fads among the big promoters and braggards among us is to take a world tour at the expense of the churches. You can raise money for anything except the simple truth of the Gospel). Thus we are “puffed up” and boast and blow until we convince ourselves that we are “on the march” and really doing “greater things for God” than even He ever planned. When we should rather be “ashamed and mourn” for the division and sin that characterizes us everywhere.

Congregations are dividing over what a lot of brethren are contending are “mere matters of method,” “opinion” and “human expediency,” yet we go right ahead introducing them, contending for them, and pushing them to the disruption of the peace of local churches. Our schemes and promotions have become such idols in our hearts that we cannot regard our obligation to “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

We need to learn all over again, if we have ever known them, the requirements laid down by the Spirit through Paul to these Corinthians for restoring the unity which they were destroying in their “carnality.” Read carefully again 1 Cor. 1:10, “Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment.”

1. Speak the same thing. This would eliminate the preaching of opinions, private judgments, human wisdom, “Questionings and disputes of words,” “fables,” “striving about words to no profit,” “vain babbling,” “excellency of speech, or of wisdom (our own),” and would cause us in “weakness and fear and in much trembling” to be satisfied with preaching “Jesus Christ and him crucified.” There is no possibility of unity where this is not done.

2. That there be no divisions among you. Division is not justifiable at any cost save truth and righteousness. We cannot condone sin or compromise with error for the sake of avoiding division. This would purchase peace with men at the expense of peace with God and that is too great a price to pay. But nothing else, including, personal feelings, pride, regard for men, our own preferences, wisdom or judgment, will justify division. Truth and righteousness must be upheld at any cost. (Read Matt. 10:34-39).

3. Be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment. This involves the right attitude toward each other. It will not allow parties, cliques, or clans to arise in the congregation. It forbids “respect of persons” (James 2:1-13). It requires generosity of heart, humility of soul, meekness in disposition and enough love for the souls of the brethren to make us willing to always be interested in their spiritual welfare.

These are simple rules but they involve much.

Truth Magazine, XX:26, p. 6
June 24, 1976